Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Peter Brooke: I thank you warmly, Madam Speaker, for inviting me to open this debate. I was guilty of a solecism on the question of private notice questions yesterday. If today I commit any further solecisms—because I have never taken part in one of these debates before—I apologise to the House in advance.
I do not intend for a moment that, as radio broadcasts suggested overnight, this should be simply a debate on London health, although I have to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would have only herself to blame if it were. I shall be brief, because other hon. Members have other matters that they wish to raise.
We have debated London health on three occasions since the House reconvened last October—on 21 October, on 31 January in a general debate about the health service, and on 14 February. I did not speak in the third debate, because it was on the eve of the deadline for the consultation on Bart's. However, I spoke in the earlier debates, so I shall not rehearse my views on the London health position that I expressed on those two occasions.
On the first of those occasions, I said that I had sympathy for the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, both on the rationalisation of specialties in London and on what was argued to be the over-provision of London hospitals. Others will decide whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cheerful casualness this morning on the subject of London hospitals was the most wholly constructive tone that could have been struck in the present circumstances.
On the question of Bart's, I have from the start recognised the difficulty of merging two great hospitals. Bart's has entered into the spirit of the merger conversations in an effort to make it a success. In one of my earlier speeches in the House, I commented on the way that the process was being managed and the sensitivity of the leadership being given to it.
In the context of the decision announced yesterday, I have to say that the stunningly juvenile trivialisation of an anti-Bart's press release that has emerged from the Royal London trust within the past month has in no way encouraged me to believe that the lesson was being learned about how sensitively that leadership has to be conducted.
The decision has now been taken, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health did not announce it to the House in person yesterday. She has specifically said that she wants to ensure that the ethos of Bart's is carried on into the new merged institution. Much will hang on what use is made of the Bart's site, which, in the minds of many who have been associated with Bart's, is hallowed ground because of the history of nine centuries of medical care on that site beside the great priory of St. Bartholomew.
How the use of that site is handled will play a large part, over the next five years, in the way that the merged institution will develop. I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulty about making a statement on that, beyond the relatively general remarks about a project team that she made in her written answer yesterday. Her announcement was about the decision to close Bart's, and it could not be complicated by other observations, which, at that stage, could not really be made. However, it is absolutely critical that that work goes forward in an imaginative way, and that it enjoys the Government's support.
I commented yesterday on my right hon. Friend's decision not to make a statement to the House. I understand that she would have received advice from her civil service advisers that, if she made a statement on one hospital, she would have to make a statement on all of them. If a hospital, however, has been around for 900 years, for it to receive its death warrant through a written answer does not seem to be wholly worthy of the traditions of our party.
I am afraid that my view of the manner in which the decision has been announced is that it bore signs of some of the insensitivity with which the proposed merger has been carried forward so far. I hope that everyone will have learnt a lesson from the episode, and that we can look forward to a better future than some of us might think we can look forward to.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I wish to raise the subject of Nicholas Ingram, who was born in my constituency of Cambridge. He awaits a horrific death by electric chair in Georgia in the United States of America. His execution has been timed for 7 o'clock tomorrow, 6 April.
I must make it clear that in no way do I condone the crime of which Ingram was found guilty. I understand that he was convicted of tying a middle-aged couple to a tree as he burgled their home. He was 19 at the time. The crime was supposedly committed after a day's drinking and drug taking, during which he and an accomplice had already broken into two homes. Later, he shot the couple and the man died, while his wife survived.
I have the utmost sympathy with victim of that crime. I have not heard from her in the Ingram case, but I am sure that his execution will raise many unpleasant and difficult memories for her. If Ingram did commit that appalling crime, he should, of course, be properly punished. In all cases, the punishment should fit the crime. It should not be more barbaric, cruel and vicious than the crime which he perpetrated against his victim.
The intended method of execution—the electric chair—is performed only in the United States of America. Nick Ingram has been waiting for that for the


past 12 years. A misapprehension exists that execution by electrocution is painless and swift—it is not. Elsewhere, the overwhelming trend is towards more humane forms of execution.
I should like to describe what observers at previous electrocutions have reported. They have reported that the body turns bright red as the temperature rises, that the flesh swells and that the skin is stretched to the point of breaking. Sometimes, the prisoner catches fire, especially if he perspires excessively. The prisoner's fingers, toes and face are severely contorted. The force of the electrical current is so powerful that sometimes the eyeballs pop out and rest on his cheek.
The prisoner often defecates, urinates, vomits and drools. Witnesses have often heard a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the air. In the meantime, the prisoner almost boils. The temperature of the brain approaches the boiling point of water, and when the post-electrocution autopsy is performed, the body is so hot that it cannot be touched by human hand.
When we speak about barbaric acts, that is what we are talking about. Execution is not instantaneous. Death is not painless. Torture is prolonged and painful. Victims can take minutes to die, or even to lose consciousness, and they struggle to free themselves from the excruciating pain.
Nick Ingram is a British citizen. He has been awaiting that horrific end for the past 12 years. He knows very well what happens to prisoners who are electrocuted. I ask the House to judge whether that punishment really fits the crime.
The sentence is decided by the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles. The legal adviser to that board has already said that he will listen to any appeal from the United Kingdom Government with the utmost gravity. In view of that, I find it extraordinary that the Prime Minister has felt unable to express any view on behalf of the UK Government.
I wrote to the Prime Minister about the matter last Thursday, and to date I have not received any reply. I was informed by a journalist on Monday that a letter from the Prime Minister was on its way to me. What is more, the journalist was able to tell me what that reply said. He told me that it differed slightly from that sent to Mrs. Ingram, Nick Ingram's mother.
To Mrs. Ingram, the Prime Minister said that there were no proper grounds for him to intervene. Apparently, Nick Ingram's dual nationality somehow takes away from the fact that he is, in all seriousness, a British citizen, having been born in my constituency. To me, the Prime Minister has apparently said that no formal grounds exist for him to intervene.
A great deal of difference exists between those two replies. If that is what the Prime Minister has said to me in his letter, an explanation is required. If no formal grounds exist for him to intervene, surely he can intervene on informal grounds. His recent trip to Washington would have been an ideal opportunity for him to take a view of the matter and to express it both to the President and to the authorities in Georgia.
Yesterday, a federal judge in Georgia threw out a civil rights lawsuit filed by Ingram, in which he claimed that electrocution was a cruel and unusual punishment, banned

under the United States constitution, and inconsistent with a mature society. At a hearing this afternoon, two lawyers from this country will try to convince the board that Ingram was not mentally fit to stand trial for the murder of the Georgian man during the drunken robbery in 1983.
I make a plea yet again to the Leader of the House and to the Prime Minister to make it known to the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles that this country considers electrocution to be a barbaric method of execution, and that it should not be perpetrated in any civilised state.
It has been left to the European Parliament, which yesterday called on United States President Bill Clinton to spare the life of Nicholas Ingram. Klaus Haensch, the president of the Parliament, said in a letter to President Clinton yesterday that there was
abhorrence in much of Europe for execution by electric chair".
All I ask is that our Government should do the same.

Sir John Cope: I welcome the holding of this debate. It is a sensible adaptation of our procedures to continue to have general, open and, as a rule, relatively low-key debates before recesses.
At this time of year, my right hon. Friend the Lord President will be giving special attention to the programme for the next Session of Parliament. The newspapers have already picked up some ideas about what is in line, all of which sound highly desirable, but, in addition, I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage his colleagues to include a construction contracts Bill, based on the proposals in the report of the Latham review.
We all know that our former colleague Sir Michael Latham is an especially assiduous and hard-working man, with a detailed knowledge of the construction industry. It is no surprise, therefore, that the proposals are carefully researched and widely supported in the industry.
The construction industry is, of course, of major importance to our country, especially these days, when the infrastructure needs to be developed and redeveloped efficiently and economically. The problems that the proposals deal with are serious and deep-seated, and lie at the heart of the complex contractual relationships that are negotiated between the many different parts of the construction industry day by day.
It is extremely bad for our country that that important industry should be continually distracted to the degree it is by argument about contracts and payments. The industry cannot sort out these problems on its own, but needs a Bill. I believe that the Latham proposals point the way.
I can see three reasons that might make the Government hesitate to legislate on the proposals, but, in my judgment, none is a show-stopper. First, they may be seen as introducing more regulations while the Government are trying to deregulate. Secondly, new regulations usually involve costs, and the Government are, of course, major buyers of construction. Thirdly, the proposals include legislation on late payment, which is something that we have resisted before, none more than me when I was a Minister and, for that matter, before and since being a Minister.
On the first point, I see the Latham Bill as an anti-paperwork Bill. The intention is to reduce the amount of paperwork as well as the amount of argument, both of


which bedevil the construction industry. The Bill is designed precisely to minimise the arguments that ensue under the present contractual arrangements.
My second hesitation involves cost to clients, including the Government. However, the Bill is designed to cut costs, and Latham suggested that it would cut them by up to 30 per cent. Certainly every subcontractor now has to allow a huge contingency against contractual arguments and payment delays involved in the present system. Therefore, the Treasury should support the Bill.
Although I have worked for small businesses throughout my political life, I have argued against general legislation for statutory interest on late payment before, during and since my time as Minister with responsibility for small firms, and I remain firmly against it in general. Such legislation would be very complex, and would need to allow for different practices in different trades.
Small firms that cannot now lean on their large customers for payment would have the same difficulty in getting the interest. Of course, a very large number of small firms are retailers which take cash over the counter and which would be hit, not helped, by the introduction of statutory interest.
I am, however, convinced by the Latham report's suggestion that the construction industry is different. The cash flow, and hence the health, of the industry is seriously compromised by the present contract system, and the use that is made of every opportunity for a dispute to delay payment.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will do his best to include the Latham Bill in next year's programme, and will tell his colleagues, especially the Secretary of State for the Environment whose primary responsible it is, that there is support for just such a Bill in all parts of the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: I welcome this innovation of Adjournment debates in the morning instead of the afternoon, because I now have the opportunity to speak. When such debates took place in the afternoon after the business of the House, at about 3.30 pm to 4 pm, and we had only three hours, I usually failed to be chosen, so perhaps this innovation is a step in the right direction.
Although I want to get back to my constituency and family, perhaps it would have been wiser were the House not to adjourn so early for the Easter recess, but instead were to consider issues of grave importance not only to my constituents but to the country at large. I am thinking of the escalation of crime, especially joyriding.
In my constituency in the past few months, joyriders have killed numerous motorists who were unaware that they—the joyriders—were drunk or sometimes drugged, and had no licence or insurance. Two weeks ago, a young boy of 14, together with three other boys of the same age, took his parents' car. He was not licensed to drive and, at 14, was incapable of driving properly on the main road. He drove into another car at about 70 or 80 mph and killed the young lady who was driving and some others in the car.
On 12 March, I received a letter from the uncle of that young lady, Lianne Davies. I think that I should read to

the House the sentiments expressed in that letter, because they encapsulate the problem and tragedy of joy riding. Mr. Davies wrote:
In the wake of the tragic death of my niece, Lianne Davies as a result of 'joyriding', I feel that something must be done to try and prevent this tragedy happening again and again. The whole of the community has been touched and angered at this tragic waste of a young life, someone who was just embarking on a new life with her boyfriend, Christopher, together with her young son, Thomas.
Not only has this tragedy angered honest, hard-working and caring people at a local level but it has disgusted and angered people nationwide.
The time has come to stop the minority in our area, and nationwide, 'ruling the roost' and laughing in the faces of so called law and order. We must now have a punish that befits the crime. Time and again these 'yobs' are getting off far too lightly. The person who drove the car which killed the Mansells, last August, received just 7 years and his accomplices are only on a charge of car theft. That driver is a murderer and should have been sent down for a minimum term not a maximum. The others in the car with him should be on a charge which is greater than just car theft.
During the week after this terrible tragedy we are still hearing stories of cars being stolen in our area and in fact, in the early hours of Saturday morning the 11th of March, the day after Lianne's funeral, Maesteg town was cordoned-off to try and catch 4 'joyriders'.
The issues, as we all know, are greater than just considerably increasing the punishments for car crimes. The underlying issues are those of discipline at home and in our schools. Human rights have swung too far in the favour of those who now turn around in school and say to a teacher, 'you touch me and I'll have you on a charge of assault'. The so-called 'do-gooders' in our society have ruined it with the softly, softly approach. Surely we must return to some level of common sense where a teacher is able to discipline a pupil, and a policeman can perform his duty without threat of losing his or her job. A few canes didn't do me any harm. The world and the 'law' has gone crazy. The police must have more powers to handle difficult situations.
There is much more that could and should be said but what I, on behalf of Lianne's family, want is some sort of legislation which severely punishes car crime, and more police presence at all hours in the community to stamp out this crime and others, such as under age drinking, which is rife, and drug-taking. Punish the parents, punish the landlords, punish the criminals severely and let a prison be a prison not a community centre. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Lianne's uncle suggests that, if I want to discuss the issues further with him, I should.
The whole town turned out at Lianne's funeral, and everyone shared the family's grief. One can imagine the shock of a parent who has reared a daughter and a son until they are 21 and 14 respectively, and who is informed, an hour after they have gone out for a ride in the car, that both children are dead. Nothing can compensate a father or a mother for the death of two children.
A month before Lianne's death, a father of 32 and a mother of 31 were driving home from the seaside on a Saturday evening. Another car, driven by a person who was unlicensed and under age, with three under-age people as passengers, drove down a hill directly into their car, killing them both and leaving a young son of three an orphan. That tragedy was caused by joyriding. It is high time that the House and the Government took action, together with the motor manufacturers, to try to resolve the problem, which would be in everyone's interests.
We should also have more police on the beat to ensure that joyriding does not take place. The incident I have described could have been avoided if the 14-year-old boy involved had been apprehended when he took possession of the car and before he went out driving. I appeal to the House and the Government to do something. If they do


not, there will be further deaths as a direct result of joyriding by people who are unlicensed and who should not be on the road.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on his speech. He has expressed views that are shared on both sides of the House. I thank him for bringing the matter to the attention of the House; he deserves support.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to refer my remarks to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, because they specifically concern the final decisions on the reorganisation of local government in Devon. When the Local Government Commission for England first considered the matter, it went to a great deal of trouble and published three alternative suggestions for the reorganisation of Devon.
The first suggestion was for a unitary authority of four areas; the second was for a unitary authority of six areas; and the third was for Plymouth to change its status and, once again, to be a unitary authority, with the rest of Devon remaining the same.
There was much consideration of the proposals throughout the county, and the third proposal seemed to be fairly widely accepted, although not universally. As shown on page 104 of the commission's report, 31 per cent. of the county accepted the proposal, and a further 14 per cent. wanted no change. The commission's proposal was the nearest thing to leaving the county as it was. Everyone accepted that Plymouth, one of the largest cities in the country, should have its own unitary authority.
Much to everyone's surprise, when the commission made its final decision, it produced a recommendation that had never been put as an alternative, which was for Plymouth and Torbay to be made unitary authorities, with the rest of the county to remain the same. This immediately provoked an uprising—perhaps that is an overstatement: a considerable amount of adverse opinion—in the city of Exeter. Exeter is one of the oldest cathedral towns, and it could not see why the upstart Torbay should be given unitary authority status when it was not.
There were immediately problems in South Hams as well. For a local authority between Torbay and Plymouth, it was worrying that the two local government areas on either side might become unitary authorities. It was feared that one or other was likely to want to extend its boundaries and slowly to eat up South Hams. It has been mooted that perhaps South Hams should become a unitary authority.
My local authority of East Devon is remarkable, because it is one of the few local authorities in the country that has no debt in housing, or in anything else. That is a pretty remarkable achievement for a local authority at this time. East Devon has even allowed some of its capital allowances to be used by other authorities because it does not need them all. We have a pretty good local authority in East Devon.
East Devon is suddenly saying that, in view of Exeter's position, it should perhaps now be considered for unitary authority status by the Secretary of State for the Environment. East Devon is much larger than Torbay, it is much larger than Exeter, and it has a larger population

than both areas. People ask why, if Exeter is being considered for unitary status, East Devon should not be considered.
From looking at the report of the Local Government Commission for England, I see that 14 counties in which it was originally suggested that unitary authorities should be created will not now, in the final recommendations, have unitary authorities, but will remain the same. The 14 counties are Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Shropshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Wiltshire, Surrey, East Sussex, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. All will revert to their previous positions. Yet in Devon, contrary to the original recommendation, a new unitary authority is being suggested.
I point out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that it is suggested on page 104 of the commission's report that there is
widespread support for unitary authorities for both Exeter and Torbay".
That is a massive overstatement. Many people have told me that, when an opinion poll was carried out in Torbay, they did not vote because the suggestion that Torbay should become a unitary authority was not an alternative given by the commission; they did not take it seriously.
The only people who voted were those who were keen to bring about a unitary authority. The other people did not bother, and did not think that the suggestion should be considered. I very much doubt, therefore, whether the words "widespread support" are accurate. Devon county council, East Devon district council, Mid Devon district council and, I think, Teignbridge district council were all very much in favour of the Local Government Commission for England's original recommendation—for the status quo to remain, except for Plymouth.
The great difficulty is that, when the measure comes before the House, it will be by way of statutory instrument, to which there can be no amendment. Therefore, we cannot vote on what the local people might like. We will either have to accept the measure or reject it absolutely. That puts some Members of Parliament—I believe that the same is true of counties other than Devon—in a difficult position.
Therefore, will the Secretary of State look at the matter again before he brings forward such a measure? If the majority of people throughout Devon were consulted, they would be more likely to support the commission's original recommendation—that Devon county council and Devon district councils should stay the same, and Plymouth should become a unitary authority. I believe that people would be much happier if we proceeded in that way.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am aware that the debate is popular and many of my colleagues want to contribute to it, so I shall be brief.
I wish to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and record, as people sought to do yesterday, the general dissatisfaction about the way in which a major health announcement was made yesterday.
I wish to place on record how extraordinary it was that such a major announcement—covering so many hospitals and constituencies, and involving so much money and emotional investment—should have been made by way of


a written answer, particularly as the original proposal was announced in the House. In addition, we discovered that, on the same day, the Secretary of State for Wales was making a policy statement to the opposite effect.
The Secretary of State for Health will suffer as a result of the way in which the announcement was made. The right hon. Lady's failure to provide an opportunity for questions means that people's frustrations will be pent up until they can question her. I always thought that there was a majority in the House against the Secretary of State's proposals, certainly as they relate to the south London arrangements and Guy's hospital. She has done nothing to reduce that opposition, and may well have produced firmer opposition to Government plans. I fear that, as a result of the way in which she handled the matter yesterday, she will not have heard the end of it.
I shall flag up questions now to allow the Leader of the House to give the Secretary of State early notice of what she would have been asked about yesterday. If the Secretary of State accepts—as she appears to do by her written answer, her press statement and her letter to me and other colleagues—that there are preconditions for the closure of the Guy's hospital accident and emergency unit, and if those conditions are not met in three, four, five or six years' time, does that mean that the closure will not go ahead?
Those conditions are that the London ambulance service should be fully equipped and should do its job properly, that all other accident and emergency units in south London should be fully functioning and able to cope, and that there should be adequate funds. Logically, if the conditions are not met, the closure should not go ahead.
The health commission said that the closure should go ahead only if the preconditions were met. If that is so, has it been decided that the accident and emergency department will close if it will close only if certain other things happen? The truth is that it may close, so it would be far better to say that it will remain open but that, if various conditions are met, it may close. It would be better to do that than to blight the department for four years when, at the end of that period, it may still be needed and may stay open.
I have a set of questions involving Philip Harris house. The press release says that it will be in full use. The letter sent out to the chairman of the health authority said that it would be used substantially in line with original plans. Elsewhere it states that three quarters of the space will be used as originally intended. What is the truth? Is it not true that £1 million worth of equipment will have to be taken out of Philip Harris house so that it can be converted for uses other than those for which it was originally intended?
Is it not the case that, although the special trustees may leave their money in, Philip Harris, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Kidney Patients Association are not willing to give their money and their money will be taken out? Is it not true that large parts of the building of Philip Harris house will not now be used as originally intended? Is that not madness, given that it is a state of the art building in the health service?
What about the other two newest buildings: Guy's tower and new Guy's house? In the past two weeks we have put it to the Secretary of State in a letter, and to other people in other ways that, suddenly, King's College London and the United Medical and Dental schools would

not need as much space as before. Up to 20 floors in the two other newest buildings will be available. Why was that fact not dealt with in the written answer, the letter or the press statement? Why has no thought been given to those matters? Does it not materially change the logical way to plan when one of the prospective users no longer wants to use the site—as happened two weeks ago?
Was the regional health authority general manager correct to say that that development may mean that part of the Guy's hospital site—the new Guy's house and Guy's tower—may be disposed of? Does "disposed of" mean sold off, and does that therefore mean that part of Guy's hospital will be sold out of the national health service? If so, we should have been told. I do not think that a majority of the House would be in favour of that.
What about the worries that having a minor surgery unit and some non-emergency beds without intensive care or intensive treatment units is dangerous? The consultants say that they will not carry out such activities without intensive care back-up in case of emergencies. Is it not entirely irresponsible to have such units without that back up?
Why have we still not received the trust business case, which was meant to have been produced before the consultation began? In a letter to me yesterday, the Minister for Health said:
The full business case for the redevelopment of Guy's and St. Thomas' has been submitted to the South Thames Regional Office, and the Trust is now exploring private finance options. We look forward to seeing the completed full business case from the Guy's and St Thomas' Trust in the near future.
Not to have the business case at the end of the consultation or even on the day of the announcement, when it was meant to be the basis of the proposal for the hospital, is, to say the least, extraordinary, and probably hugely incompetent. How on earth can a decision be made when one of the decision's building blocks is not in place?
Have not all the consultants in the south-east of England said that they are dissatisfied with the proposals relating to neurosciences and paediatrics, will not use the services as currently proposed, and will send all their patients to Great Ormond Street hospital rather than elsewhere in south London? Has not the neurology debate involved various changes of view in recent weeks, some of which were raised at the regional health authority meeting, but none of which was addressed, let alone answered, in the Secretary of State's written answer, press statement or letters?
What will happen about the management of the trust—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) in last week's debate? Will we be left with a management—with the most highly paid chief executive in the land who was previously employed to run one of the two hospitals in the merged trust—which does not have the confidence of the people who work in and use Guy's hospital? I have never said this before in the House, but the chief executive has to go, and the management must be changed. It is entirely unacceptable that people are running the trust in a way that does not enjoy the confidence of any of the people in Guy's hospital. An urgent decision is needed, and the Secretary of State should ensure that it is taken in the next few days if there is to be any prospect of credible progress.
The written answer was two pages long. It would have been possible to make a statement of the same length. It was entirely unacceptable that such a statement was not


made. All the questions that remain to be answered will remain to be answered until they are answered fully. When they are answered, we may discover how illogical, inappropriate and unsupported the decision was. To quote what a Conservative Member said yesterday, it was at least—and to put it mildly—politically inept.

Sir Peter Fry: Before I commence my remarks, I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). The more often such sentiments are expressed, the more likely it is that there will be action in the direction that we both want. May I offer the hon. Gentleman a word of advice? Perhaps he should have a word with some members of the magistrates bench in his area, some of whom I fear seem to leave all common sense behind when they are put on the bench and reach some very strange decisions and sentences. I am sure that the House was grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore for raising that issue.
As we are debating matters which should be raised before the adjournment for the Easter recess, which is the first main holiday of the year, I hope that it is appropriate for me to raise what seem to be unfair advertising practices by sections of the travel industry. There are two practices which are virtually scams inflicted on the travelling public. The first is that of holiday travel insurance.
At the moment, there are numerous advertisements for holidays at various discounts from 4 per cent. to 15 per cent. I have a copy of such an advertisement which is in general circulation. However, in order to obtain that discount, according to the advertisement to which I have just referred, it is necessary for the operator's
travel insurance to be purchased at the time of booking and as part of the same transaction.
That advertisement, and other similarly phrased advertisements, fail to inform the public of the very substantial commission paid on the travel insurance premium by the insurer to the operator.
The Travel Trade Gazette issued a list of insurers and the amount of commission payable. It is clear that up to 50 per cent. commission can be obtained by an operator. The usual level of commission is 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. for longer haul holidays. Therefore, someone booking a £400 holiday which was subject to a 7 per cent. discount would receive £28 off the cost. If there was a 4 per cent. discount, he would receive £16 off. However, that could result in that person paying back in insurance premiums, through the commission that is paid, more than the amount saved. That is not quite the bargain that the operators would like to let the public believe it is.
Some operators provide their own insurance, trusting that they will be able to make a handsome profit after having to pay claims. That practice reminds me of the collision damage waiver policies of some American car hire companies, which add enormously to the advertised costs of car rental. However, to revert to travel insurance, let me quote at length from the Travel Trade Gazette, which is one of the most authoritative journals on holidays and travel. It states:
The multiples generally charge more for their insurance than other travel agents, banks or building societies, to claw back the cost of offering holiday discounts. They offer a bad deal to families,

whereas most independents offer discounts to children or cover them for free. A family of four travelling to Florida could pay up to £218"—
for their insurance—
 with the multiples, when the net cost to the agent is £50. Underwriters and brokers see little hope of change while insurance is used to fund discounts … Commercial Union's Travellers Insurance Association manager … said high retail prices cause problems when customers were disputing claims.
'Travel agents put too much emphasis on making profits from insurance.'
That would be bad enough, but other aspects of that policy must be aired. If a potential holiday maker has his or her own annual insurance, the discount may be withdrawn by the operator unless he or she agrees to sign an insurance indemnity.
I recently met the well-known television travel presenter, Mr. John Carter of "Wish You Were Here", who showed me a letter that he had received from a Mr. Cushway of Chelmsford. Mr. Cushway has his own annual insurance, but he was astonished to read the terms of the indemnity that he was expected to sign by the operator, "Going Places", if he did not take out the operator's insurance. The indemnity reads:
In consideration of Going Places agreeing to book my holiday/travel arrangements without proof of my insurance arrangements, I hereby agree on behalf of myself and (if applicable) My Party to indemnify and keep indemnified Going Places and the tour operator for any costs, claims, liabilities or any other losses whatsoever that are incurred by Going Places or the tour operator and which would otherwise have been met or satisfied had I taken out insurance with Going Places or the tour operator.
That means that if one received an injury resulting in a personal accident claim, even if that was the liability of the operator, the holiday maker would not be able to claim against the operator. Is it therefore no surprise that Mr. Cushway wrote:
After a careful read it appears that they are getting customers to completely indemnify both Going Places and the tour operator from 'any' claims. This also includes claims that are clearly the fault of these two companies ie: flight, hotel cancellation or overbooking.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the public should not be subjected to practices like that. It would seem that steps should be taken, either to remove the condition of having to take out the operator's travel insurance or to make the amount of commission paid more public and to allow travellers to purchase their own insurance without signing an indemnity.
The other issue to which I want to refer briefly is that of flight fare advertisements. For years now, the travel pages of our newspapers, particularly the Evening Standard, and the teletext advertisements on television, have offered tempting offers of tickets to far-away places at very attractive prices. Unfortunately, a considerable number of those offers prove to be bogus. The excuse is that they are limited and are no longer available. However, at least one operator advertised services which never existed in the first place, let alone any fares that could operate on them.
Too many of the advertised fares are unavailable—[Interruption.] I was somewhat deterred there by an irrelevant intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). As a result of the practice that I have described, many people will be paying far in excess of the amount that they thought they would be paying when they communicated with the advertiser. I once telephoned a company which advertised flights to


the United States for £199. I was told that all those seats had gone. When I asked what the next cheapest category was, I was told £299, but there were no seats at that price available. I eventually paid £349, nearly double the amount originally advertised.
That somewhat unfortunate state of affairs has come to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority, which has drawn up new guidelines for ticket advertisements. It has suggested that four main aims should be achieved. First, if flights advertised are not all available at the quoted fare, it should be clearly stated that flights are available "from" the quoted price. Secondly, the ASA suggests that there should be sufficient seats available at the price quoted to ensure
that there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining the price that is advertised.
Thirdly, all fares should be available between one and six weeks after the appearance of the advertisement unless otherwise stated. Fourthly, multiple insertions of advertisements should not be made if there is a strong chance that the prices featured may change.
However worthy such guidelines are, there are serious questions to be asked about how effective they will prove in practice. For example, it will be up to local trading standards officers to investigate, but they already have to cope with the whole mass of consumer legislation and their efforts are likely to be patchy in effect.
The interesting factor is that the other bodies expected to check on the advertisements are the newspapers in which they appear, which have no direct knowledge whether advertised fares are available. An unofficial survey by Holiday Which? checked one edition of the Evening Standard advertising flights to Spain, and it was discovered that of the eight companies offering flights, only two could provide them at the cheapest advertised price.
What happens if a company is found to have transgressed the ASA code? After persistent contraventions—I stress that they have to be persistent—the authority can apply to the High Court for a restraining injunction. Only if the company continued to transgress, in breach of the injunction, would it be liable to prosecution for contempt of court. It is clear that in practice the code is difficult to enforce and does not work. The result is that the British consumer is being ripped off.
What redress is needed? I suggest, first, a clear and more effective sanction against such advertising, carrying heavy fines. Secondly, we could consider legislation similar to that being advanced in the United States, which specifically prohibits deceptive advertising. Thirdly, the Office of Fair Trading should conduct an investigation to find out whether such advertisements should be monitored so that action could be taken much earlier. If the United States Department of Transportation can take strong steps there is no reason why our Department of Transport, or the Department of Trade and Industry, cannot do the same.
The two problems that I have raised are blots on a successful British industry, and their removal would do much to raise its standing in the eyes of the public and enhance its image. It might even help bookings to pick up this year. If the industry cannot put its house in order, the demand for legislation will inevitably increase. Action is urgently needed if the consumer is to be properly protected against such scams. Holiday travel should be a pleasure, not an opportunity to be overcharged.
I hope that the Leader of the House will support my views and pass my suggestions to the relevant Ministers, and I hope that representatives of the media who may be with us will take on board the fact that this is a case of commercial sleaze—a subject with which they are much preoccupied—and perhaps give it some publicity.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The debate began with an eleventh-hour attempt by one knight of the shires, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), to save one of the London hospitals. Then we heard from another knight of the shires, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who wanted to save the old-fashioned Devon county council. There has also been an eleventh-hour attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) to save a man's life in America. I shall make an eleventh-hour attempt to save 74 jobs for disabled workers at Remploy in Derbyshire.
We all know that Remploy has been a huge success. There are about 90 units throughout the United Kingdom, and as far as I know from my research, until now not one has been closed on commercial grounds. Closures have taken place only because of fires or other planning difficulties.
However, according to a lobby of disabled people who came to Parliament yesterday, the Remploy factory in Alfreton is to close. I have informed the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), in whose constituency the factory lies. He knows about the closure, says that he has made representations, and is fully aware of what I intend to say. I must raise the subject because many of the workers at the factory live in Bolsover; several more live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
The factory employs 74 people, many of whom use wheelchairs. Others are epileptic, and they all have all the usual problems that disabled people face. Over the past two or three years we have talked about disabled people at length in the House, partly because of all the private Members' Bills that my hon. Friends have tried to introduce on successive Fridays. It is appalling that, with the Government-sponsored Disability Discrimination Bill, which talks about looking after disabled people's rights, on its way to the other place, 74 disabled people are being kicked out of their jobs in the middle of Derbyshire.
It will be said that those 74 people have been offered other jobs—that is the usual cry—but it is not easy for disabled people to travel long distances, and the proposal to shunt them along to Mansfield means an average journey of about 10 miles. Yesterday in the Lobby I spoke to someone from Clay Cross, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East, which is 12 miles from Mansfield. That person finds it difficult enough to travel the five miles to Alfreton, without piling on more by going to Mansfield and back.
It is a disgrace that Remploy is being allowed to shut the factory and that, seemingly, the Government are doing nothing about it. The people concerned have written to the Prime Minister but, as has been said earlier in the debate about other people, they are still waiting for a decent reply. I think that the Prime Minister passed the


letter on to one of the Ministers in the Department of unemployment. That is why, even at this late stage, the matter must be resolved.
On Friday 7 April a 50th anniversary celebration will take place at Remploy, and the directors in Cricklewood have had the cheek to invite the 74 people from Alfreton to travel down for a celebration party and to cut a cake, just days before 20 April, when their jobs will be cast aside. They will not go. Every one of the 74 workers is backing the trade unions' attempts to save the jobs. Incidentally, there are about six unions involved at Remploy, every one of them committed to fighting the closure. Those people will not go to the celebration because they do not find anything to celebrate in the fact that they are being chucked out of work.
I appeal to the Leader of the House to ask the Ministers responsible to act. I suppose that the subject comes under the Department of Employment, or possibly the Department of Trade and Industry—and of course it affects social security, too. We are often told, especially by Ministers, about the massive sums spent on social security and we all know that it costs about £9,000 per annum to chuck somebody out of work. Yet the proposal is to get rid of 74 jobs, which will cost the Exchequer—that is, the taxpayer—£9,000 apiece. That is crazy economics, and that is why Ministers should call on the directors of Remploy to ensure that the factory is not closed.
Now that the true figures have been revealed this morning by one of the groups of chattering-class people, which has told us that the unemployment statistics are wrong, we all know that what we have always said is true, and that there are at least 4 million people without a job. Now a further 74 people are to be chucked on the scrap heap to join that pile of human misery.
What about the work that the 74 people do? They produce jumpers for Marks and Spencer, and throughout the entire period of that production Marks and Spencer has not made one complaint about the quality of the goods. There is no argument for closing the factory on those grounds either. So what is the reason for the closure? As we all know, the reason is that there are people running Remploy who are hand in glove with the Government. Disabled people know that the only protection they have is through membership of a trade union, and all the employees belong to a trade union. We know that the Government have a thing about people who are members of trade unions.
I call upon the Minister to convey my message to his colleagues. The closure is due to occur on 20 April. There will be no celebrations for the employees of the Remploy factory in Alfreton, but there could be if the Government would listen to the people who came to lobby their Members of Parliament yesterday—as is their right—and to present petitions.
I now turn to another matter regarding a different lobby. Last week, 5,000 people came to lobby Parliament about education cuts, teachers' pay and the larger class sizes that will result from the Government's proposals for education. The people who came from Derbyshire to lobby their Members of Parliament had to take the day off to do so. Everyone should have the inalienable right to come to this place to petition Members of Parliament.
Fire fighters, teachers, parents and kids took part in that lobby and they presented a petition to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I helped them with their petition. What is wrong with people travelling to London to petition Parliament?
London is 150 miles from north Derbyshire, so when teachers and others travel to London to lobby Parliament they cannot work on that day. In the education debate that followed the lobby, the Secretary of State for Education, prompted by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), had the gall to attack those teachers for taking the day off. She talked about calling in the auditor. That is appalling. Not everyone can get to London easily or at the drop of a hat. People in many parts of Britain have to take time off work to carry out their duties of petitioning and lobbying their Members of Parliament.
I have a typical letter from one of the schools involved in the lobby in which it is made abundantly clear that no money was lost to the local authority as a result of its involvement. It has written to the Secretary of State for Education to say:
We regret the necessity of writing to you"—
that is the Secretary of State—
on the subject of your totally unfounded remarks made in the House yesterday on the subject of the presence of Derbyshire teachers at the lobby of their MPs".
It refers to the closure of the school in north Derbyshire and explains that the lobby:
was on a day already scheduled for inset. It therefore caused no inconvenience to pupils or parents, nor is there any accruing cost to the authority as the time lost will be recouped in a series of evening sessions which have already been arranged. You will note that the only cost has been to the teachers themselves".
Members can imagine how those teachers felt when they switched on their televisions last Wednesday and heard the Secretary of State attacking them for having the temerity to come to their Parliament to lobby Members and to petition the Prime Minister and others. It is the height of arrogance for the Government to attack people in that fashion. The Secretary of State for Education should have the decency to apologise to those teachers in accordance with the requests made in the letter.
I have spoken about two lobbies today. One concerns a group of disabled people who are fighting for their jobs. Surely the Government could intervene and call upon Remploy to keep the Alfreton factory open. Secondly, the Minister should have the decency to apologise for her unwarranted attacks on the teachers, parents and kids who came from Derbyshire last Wednesday to fight for teachers' pay, people's jobs and for a decent education.

Mr. John Carlisle: As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has given us a colourful account of various matters in his constituency. I regret his latter remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. Teachers and other professionals have ample opportunity to visit this place to lobby Members of Parliament or whatever during their holiday time.
The hon. Gentleman said that the teachers travelled to London on a training day. One is bound to ask why training days occur during term time when they could take


place during school holidays. Children are often forced to take days off school because of teacher absences due to training or due to lobbies such as that described by the hon. Gentleman. There is ample opportunity for those activities to take place during the school holidays—which are substantial, although well deserved nonetheless.
I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments as I wish to refer to a matter which has been discussed many times on the Floor of the House in the past few weeks. Education in Bedfordshire was the subject of certain comments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who referred to the fact that Bedfordshire education authority has mounted a massive campaign against the Government. Although the financial settlement is tight, I believe that it will benefit my constituents and the teaching profession as a whole.
In opening the education debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made what I considered to be a most unfortunate speech—I have certainly heard him speak better on previous occasions—in which he castigated taxpayers for not pouring more money into the problem. That is a typical example of what Labour Members do if they are in any sort of difficulty—they chuck money at the problem and hope that it will go away. The Government take a more responsible approach. Many teachers, parents and school governors have written to Conservative Members about their difficulties and we could have agreed that more money would solve their problems. That would be the easiest way out. However, the Government are more responsible than the Labour party when it comes to spending other people's money.
In my county of Bedfordshire, the approach of parents to education ranges from the ignorant to the very genuine—obviously, the majority fall into the latter category. However, there are parents—some of whom may also have written to my right hon. and hon. Friends—who display an ignorance about the education system which makes me wonder whether they have any idea what happens to their children between the time they leave them at the school gates and when they collect them, or deputise someone else to do so, at 3.30 pm.
One constituent from the Sunden Park area was very abusive in his letter to me, using foul language which I shall not repeat to the House. I replied that as he was so oaf-like in his attitude to education he was not fit to have a child, let alone to demand that others look after that child on his behalf. Another constituent who wrote to me was distressed that the dinner supervisors could be made redundant due to education budget savings which would have to be made at the school. She protested that that would mean that she would have to pay more in child minding fees because her child could not come home for lunch when she was at work. Some parents use schools purely for child minding purposes and give no thought to education. That sort of ignorance distresses us greatly.
The education debate should add a new dimension to parental responsibility. Some 99 per cent. of parents are entirely genuine in their concerns. They have written to me to express their fears at what might happen as a consequence of the savings which have been threatened by, in many cases, Labour and Liberal-controlled local authorities and which must be made in accordance with the Secretary of State's strictures. Like the majority of counties, Bedfordshire received an increase in its education budget and in its standard spending assessment, although one would not think so from reading the letters.

I hope that there will be greater involvement by parents in schools and that they will take more responsibility for their children's education. In many cases, they leave it totally to the teaching profession, feeling that once their children are at the school gates they are somebody else's problem.
I hope that there will be greater parental involvement in parent-teacher associations, which are doing reasonably well in my constituency but could do with a membership boost. I hope that there will be larger attendances at open evenings. One often hears from head teachers in particular the lament that parents do not turn up for open evenings and take no interest in their children's academic progress. I hope that more parents will stand for governing bodies. Sadly, in many schools where there are places for parents they have to be begged and cajoled to serve as governors, to assist schools and the community.
If the strictures rightly being placed on schools are to do positive good, parents should understand that while they may lobby Members of Parliament—rightly, as the hon. Member for Bolsover said—and councillors, they must play a larger part in the education of their children and the running of schools. I hope that the several hundred parents who wrote to me will make it their business to help to ensure that their children receive a decent education and will become personally involved in the running of local schools.
I am lucky to have in my constituency many excellent little schools and larger ones, and good teachers. However, I was disturbed to read national figures, which may not necessarily apply to my constituency, showing that the amount of time that teachers spend in the classroom is dropping. In some LEAs, teachers spend less than 70 per cent. of their time in front of classes during the course of a shortish day in terms of hours, albeit onerous in terms of the work to be done. Nevertheless, a figure of 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. is not good enough. Many savings could be made if the system allowed teachers to spend more time in front of their classes.
I mentioned in response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover the basis of so-called Baker days. At a time when teachers' holidays are rightly generous, it seems wrong for several more days to be taken up by training in school time. Only recently, a local school teacher was seen in town on a so-called Baker day, busily shopping for her family's needs. That may have been a minor exception, but it is incredible that training days must be taken when the school is open, when they could be held during the long summer holidays or other holidays that teachers rightly enjoy. To take a day away from teaching children is totally wrong.
Why is it—the hon. Member for Bolsover may have the answer—that despite the assistance that the Government have given teachers, the massive rise in salaries, way above inflation, that the profession has enjoyed, and the fact that the number of teachers has not fallen during the past few years, one third of 14-year-old children have a reading age of 11? Are teachers happy with that situation, and is the taxpayer getting value for money? The majority of teachers, certainly in my constituency, are first class, but when the taxpayer is expected to fund additional pay to a profession already generously remunerated by comparison with some others in the private sector, the taxpayer is bound to ask why it is that levels of academic achievement do not seem to match the needs of employers.
I remain concerned at head teachers who almost avoid going in front of classes. One appreciates that there are problems of supply and sick leave. In some cases, the situation is exploited. We all know of cases of teachers on extended sick leave who cannot be got rid of for one reason or another. The opportunity exists for head teachers to spend more time in front of classes. They may plead that they have administrative duties, but in spending more time at their desks than at the chalk face they are failing in their duty to children.
I am close to the teachers in my constituency. In the past fortnight I have seen 24 head teachers in individual meetings. I am confident that my constituency has a first-class band of professionals, but improvements could be made to any system. I regret the campaign mounted by the Labour and Liberal-controlled Bedfordshire education authority which, in the words of the Conservative leader Mr. Philip Hendry, seems to want to heap a great deal of misery on parents, teachers and pupils for political advantage. When Bedfordshire's education budget was before the county council, two options were open—a 3.5 per cent. cut proposed by the Labour/Liberal majority and a 2 per cent. cut proposed by the Conservatives, which would have halved the number of proposed teacher redundancies. The council, being controlled by Labour and Liberal members, chose the former and then inevitably blamed the Government for the problems that would follow. It could easily have accepted a 2 per cent. budget cut, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on the Floor of the House.
Over the past five years, Bedfordshire has enjoyed a real increase of 30 per cent. in its standard spending assessment. Where has that money gone? As a Member of Parliament, I cannot blithely tell the local education authority, "Of course I will go to the Secretary of State for Education and ask that more money be poured into your pot and of course I can go to the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to raise the cap", if I am not satisfied that the money will be properly spent. When a local authority that receives such an increase over five years still pleads poverty, makes teachers redundant and imposes substantial education cuts, one is bound to ask where the money has gone.
I can give one example of the way that money was spent which may amuse Opposition Members—if not embarrass them, as it should. Bedfordshire recently received applications from 21 members of the public for a master's degree grant. As the House knows, many local education authorities do not have the money to fund such grants. A county council spokesman was quoted in Bedfordshire on Sunday for 29 January:
We have a general policy that we do not award discretionary grants for this type of degree.
Only one such grant was made. It was—surprise, surprise—given to Councillor Adrian Heffernan, the Labour councillor for Leighton Buzzard. All 21 applications from the public were turned down, but, extraordinarily enough, the Labour and Liberal-controlled local authority made a grant for a master's degree to the Labour county councillor for Leighton Buzzard. Opposition Members accuse us of looking after our friends. Bedfordshire stands accused by me and by my hon. Friends representing constituencies in that county of not spending its money correctly and prudently. Yet the

authority was able to afford to give a grant—of all the applications, it was the only successful one—to a Labour county councillor. I should add that the councillor expressed some surprise and embarrassment that his was the only application to be approved. Never let us stand accused of looking after our friends, bearing in mind the example that I have given of what is taking place—perhaps in a tiny way in some instances, but in a considerable way in others—in education authorities that are under Labour and Liberal control.
Bedfordshire will battle through. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for putting us on our mettle and ensuring that we are giving the people of Bedfordshire value for money. I hope that the local education authority will take up the challenge, as have teachers, governors and pupils in my constituency. If the exercise is successful, as I believe that it will be, there may be openings for some form of growth next year. As things stand, however, the settlement was necessary and it has my full support.

Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on her contribution to the debate. Her remarks were heard in silence by the House, which reflected their force. I hope that, even at this late stage, they will be conveyed to the Prime Minister.
There was not just one important and controversial announcement yesterday transmitted by means of a written answer that should have been transmitted through a proper parliamentary statement. Apart from the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for the Environment made a potentially important statement about mechanisms for water charging in future.
The good news was that water companies would be allowed to go beyond the year 2000 using rateable values as a basis for charging for water. Like so many other things, however, there was bad news as well. The bad news outweighed the good news. For the first time, the Secretary of State stated that official Government policy was that metering should be the norm as a means of charging for water in future. The right hon. Gentleman's statement will be profoundly depressing to many people and organisations throughout the country. I have in mind organisations ranging from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the National Consumer Council. Representatives of the water industry such as the Water Services Association and the Water Companies Association have warned of the problems involved in moving towards a compulsory system of water metering as the basis for charging for water.
There are some fans of compulsory water metering, including the Director General of Water Services, Mr. Ian Byatt. His enthusiasm for compulsory water metering is well known. Over some time, he and Ministers have undertaken trials to assess compulsory water meters. There have been many well-founded reservations about the usefulness of the trials. The first trials took place on the Isle of Wight and in Bromsgrove. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you decided to select representative areas to determine whether water metering was a good idea or a bad idea and whether there would be technical problems,


I do not think that you would select places such as the Isle of Wight and Bromsgrove. They were selected, however, some years ago.
It is sometimes argued that compulsory water metering is a great environmental measure because it leads to the conservation of water. It is about time that the Government started to listen to those who say that if they, the Government, did rather more to reduce leakage of large amounts of water from pipes, much more could be done for conservation than would result from the imposition of compulsory water meters. If there is a conservation argument in support of water metering, I do not find it acceptable to say to consumers throughout the country that those who are expected to conserve water are those who cannot afford to pay their water bills. Compulsory water metering hits those on low incomes, those with large families and the disabled.
There are some people who can benefit from the introduction of water meters. For years, they have had the right voluntarily to opt for the installation of a meter. We are now faced, however, with the thin end of the wedge that will lead to compulsory water metering. Ministers have said that they are not looking towards compulsory water metering, but we have seen over the past few years that new properties have water meters installed.
A petition was presented to me a month or so ago from people in the Weoley Castle area of Birmingham. They had moved to a new housing estate. It was an example of new housing association property. My constituents are very pleased with their accommodation, but they were never asked whether they wanted water meters to be installed. They have the same needs now as they had when living in their previous homes but they had no choice when it came to the installation of water meters.
We are faced with a developing two-tier system. Some people are having water meters forced on them. In the long term, perhaps, everybody will be in that position.
There are other options. In December 1994, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which I asked him how much the water meter trials had cost consumers. I asked him also about the research that had been undertaken in assessing other charging mechanisms. The reply read:
The national metering trials cost £19 million. The Department of the Environment funded just under half of this amount. The water companies involved funded the rest. There are no proposals to undertake trials on other alternative charging mechanism."—[Official Report, 6 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 133.]
There we have it. In fact, there is work to be done. There are other options. For example, we could consider updating rateable values as a means of charging for water. There is a real argument to support that option. There is a real argument also in support of using the council tax as a means of charging for water. Water companies have said that we should examine how the council tax could be so used. What would need to be done to the tax bands? How far could the council tax be related to water charges? Unfortunately, the Government are not prepared to spend one penny to ascertain how the council tax could be so applied. They have ruled out the use of the council tax and have opted for metering, with no apparent justification.
I believe that the Government have adopted an opinion on what water, the supply of water and the reclamation of sewage are all about. Their opinion is very different from mine. It seems that the Government regard water as a

commodity. They appear to take the view that we can have water in the same way as we can buy a pint of beer, or go to the local supermarket to buy other goods.
Water is not like that. It is the most essential public service. It will remain a public service whoever owns it, whatever the charging methods and whatever regulatory system is in place. Supplying water and reclaiming sewage are public services. It is about time that we recognise that and introduce suitable systems for charging for them. It is not acceptable to treat the supply of water in the same way as the supply of a pint of beer. It is no more acceptable than using such a charging mechanism for the emptying of our bins or for sending our kids to school.
We must recognise that water is a public service. I hope that, despite the written answer that appeared yesterday, Ministers will think again. I hope that the Leader of the House will provide time for a proper statement and debate on the water industry and the charging systems that should be adopted, fair and equitable systems that will be in the best interests of the most important people of all, the consumers—every one of us.

Mr. David Amess: I wish to raise three brief constituency matters before the House adjourns for the Easter recess. First, I was a member of this place when legislation was introduced in 1984 to enable television cabling to take place. In 1991, legislation was introduced to permit road works to take place as a result of cabling. We all have our views on cabling. Personally, I have no desire to sit down with a piece of machinery, flicking from channel to channel—I think that companies are offering 48 channels and that people will be able to shop by television, and there is also competition for telephones, and so on—but as a Conservative, I believe in choice and that the general public should have that opportunity.
Let me return to 1984 and 1991. Perhaps I was not listening carefully to the debates then, but I had no idea of the impact that cabling would have on one's constituency when the contractors arrived. My constituency does not primarily have paving stones; it has tarmac. Ever since United Artists moved to my constituency, we have found that, week in week out, month in month out, a number of problems have been caused: water works exploding, electricity cut off, people's cars blocked in—all manner of problems. Although I am delighted that United Artists has its eastern headquarters in my constituency, with all the jobs that that has created, I do not think that the House looked carefully enough at that legislation and its impact on the lives of our constituents. I am less than happy with the way in which the contractors in my constituency have carried out their work.
I must tell my colleagues on both sides of the House that when cable companies come to their constituencies—if they have not arrived already—they should learn by the mistakes from which my constituents have suffered over the past year. There was a public meeting in my constituency last Friday and a lively exchange between United Artists and my constituents. I hope that there will not be further problems.
The second constituency matter that I wish to raise is housing. My constituency has been privileged to sell the highest number of council and commission houses in the


country. That policy was fought line by line by the two socialist parties—the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Of course, when it became popular and we won in 1983 and again in 1987, they changed their policy and became in favour of the sale of council houses. Then when we had the economic slump and mortgage rates increase, they decided that perhaps it was not such a good idea. Conservative Members have been entirely consistent on the sale of council and commission houses. It sickens me that socialist councillors in Basildon are running around the town at the moment, before the local elections are held on 4 May, trying to claim credit for matters for which they do not deserve any, and trying to pass on to other people criticism for which they are entirely responsible.
Thanks to our excellent Conservative-controlled district council in Basildon and the Department of the Environment, money has been put into the estates. Work is being carried out to fit new roofs for the Vange, Crudons and Five Links estates. Later this afternoon, I very much hope to have a successful meeting with a Minister from the Department of the Environment, because, although the Government gave a great deal of money to redevelop the Crudons estate, there has been what I would describe as uneven treatment between the people who still rent and those who have purchased their properties. I was told yesterday that 29 home owners will have to pay for their new roofs. That is totally unfair. I also believe that the Department of the Environment must do all that it possibly can to enable the Five Links estate to be redeveloped.
The final constituency point that I wish to raise concerns socialist-controlled Essex county council. It is interesting that, two years ago, the electorate in Essex were deceived into voting socialist. They were led to believe that both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties had become respectable—in other words, that they were capitalists and that socialism had been put by the by. The past two years in Essex have been a shambles because of the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition. They are socialists through and through and have caused absolute chaos in my constituency and the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink).

Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the vulnerable people in Essex who are suffering most because of the shambles caused by the socialist control of Essex? The old people and the disabled people are having their home care withdrawn. Because of the socialist control in Essex, £8.5 million was lost in the past year from the social service budget because the council was following politically correct policies.

Mr. Amess: I could not agree more. Two weeks ago, when Essex county council submitted its budget, the alliance did not have the stomach for what it had been doing, so it pulled out of the arrangement. A Conservative budget has rescued Essex county council. Quite wickedly, the socialists in Essex absolutely devastated care in the community, which had been carefully worked out. As a result of their wicked, cruel policy, our hospital waiting lists were growing, our accident and emergency queues were lengthening and it was taking much longer to have an operation. All that was the result of socialist-controlled Essex county council.
The socialists also caused chaos in education. They brought in, without any consultation, a policy of nursery education. I would have liked the issue of rising fives to have been addressed before they introduced that policy, causing great distress because of the differences between the schools that do not have nursery education and those that do. I congratulate the Conservatives on Essex county council who, as a result of their budget, have restored the Labour-Liberal alliance cut of £1 million. Primary education in Essex was going to be cut by £1 million. Care in the community has been restored as a result of the Conservatives. There will be no cuts in the fire service. That is all due to the Conservatives on Essex county council.
Two years ago, the general public in Essex were deceived by a new type of socialism, which I have seen change dramatically ever since I became a Member in 1983. On Monday, an historic debate took place. Every year, the University college of London holds a president's debate; it has done so for 166 years. The motion is that this house has no faith in Her Majesty's Government. Only once had that motion been defeated in the 166-year history of that debate, until last Monday. I am delighted to say that that motion was defeated and a great many young people who attended that debate had their eyes well and truly opened as to the reality of socialism, which is very much alive.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I wish to associate myself with the difficult speech that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), at the start of the debate. I thought that she put the case for mercy on behalf of her constituent very well.
I shall concentrate mainly on the answer that the Secretary of State for the Environment chose to give in the form of a written answer, instead of a statement, to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) yesterday about charging for water. The Leader of the House will know that, on several occasions since last September, when the water industry put its points in a well-worked-out document to the Minister, I have asked in the House when the response would be made and when we would have a debate on the issue.
I was, therefore, surprised and extremely disappointed that the Government's response crept out in a written answer the day before the Easter recess. The only good thing is that it is clear from the announcement that to extend the use of rateable values beyond the year 2000 will require parliamentary time after Easter. By raising the matter today, I seek to ensure that proper time will be given for a debate of the issue after the recess because everyone feels strongly about it.
As the Minister knows, the only region where there has been a drive towards widespread metering is the Anglian region, where it caused so much public antagonism and outcry that Anglian Water, concerned about its deteriorating public reputation, decided to drop its policy of compulsory metering and, along with companies throughout Britain, to start to offer a choice to its customers. We want to ensure that there is no element of compulsion, for owners of new or of old properties, in yesterday's written answer. That is by no means clear at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) was correct when he described the provision of water and sewerage as one of the most essential public services in Britain, not to be confused with a commodity that can be bought and sold by the pound or the pint.
The delivery of water and sewerage cannot properly be measured by quantity in that way. The industry recognises that the treatment plants, piping and sewage plants account for approximately 85 per cent. of the industry's costs in delivering the water and sewerage service. A minimal amount—15 to 20 per cent.—is related to the volume of water and sewage that goes through a system. Therefore, water is not like other utilities. Metering is inappropriate for water and sewerage.
With regard to conservation, the National Rivers Authority is concerned, first, to reduce leakage; secondly, to install more water-saving devices in people's homes; and, only then, to cut usage by metering, and it recognises that that has the disadvantage of putting pressure on families who are particularly hard up.
I tabled a question, the answer to which will appear in Hansard today, asking how popular metering is in areas such as Northern Ireland where it does not exist at the moment. The answer was that not one household in Northern Ireland has asked for its water supply to be metered. That should be borne in mind. If there is choice, people will choose to have their water and sewerage priced on the valid basis on which we have charged for water and sewerage for more than 150 years—property values.
The water industry, in its submission to the Government last September on property values, stated:
It is clear that a linkage to properties must remain.
Why have the Government refused to listen to the industry's clear argument and, indeed, rejected it? The policy is clearly put forward by the industry because it leads to immense administrative savings. Every metered bill has an individual charge which has to be measured and which may result in an argument about the amount on which it is based. A property-based charging system offers administrative savings by cutting the overheads of the water industry. That is what we all want. We do not want expenditure in the water industry to be wasted either on top salaries or on unnecessary administrative overheads.
I hope that the Leader of the House will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment early-day motion 72, which was signed by no fewer than 210 hon. Members from all parties, recommending that probably the best way forward for charging for water and sewerage would be through an amended form of council tax bands, and saying that many finance officers in English and Welsh water companies are at a loss to understand why they cannot follow the lead set by Scotland in that regard.
The reason for that is that the regulator of the Office of Water Services and the Government have almost an obsession with water metering which is leading them against the principle of consumer choice, and that will cause problems for them.
In my area, Yorkshire Water took the step, endorsed by the board and the regional Ofwat customer services committee, of moving right away from compulsion, offering people in new and old properties a choice when it came to charging for water. That was popular in Yorkshire.
The director general's reaction was to write to every other water and sewerage company expressing his disappointment at what Yorkshire Water had done and saying that he would ensure that its policy was strictly time limited so that a property-based system opted for by one householder would not apply to any subsequent owner-occupier. That is a rigid and unnecessary interpretation of a rule leading down the road of compulsory water metering.
The Government missed a big opportunity yesterday to put charging for water on a sensible basis for the future. The only thing in favour of the Government is that yesterday's statement is strictly time limited. It has neither relevance nor credibility, because the water industry, its customers and the country are waiting rather impatiently for, first, the retirement of the water regulator and, secondly, the Government's defeat in the next general election. Only then will water and sewerage be brought firmly into public control where it rightly belongs.

Mr. David Nicholson: As one who is associated with the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) in the all-party water group, I hope that Ministers will take account of their concerns—although I cannot associate myself with some of their comments, particularly the hon. Lady's final observations.
I also admired the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)—not for the first time. Some years ago, I agreed with what he said about the rights of grandparents. I hope that the Government will not be shy of moving in the direction that he suggested; after all, if Opposition Members can be rigorous about such matters, we do not want to be outbid by them.
I wish to raise several matters relating principally to local government. The first—of which I gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during Thursday's business questions—I do not wish to pursue at length; I should prefer the issue of demographic assessments and their implications for housing developments in the regions of the south-west, particularly the counties, to be debated in one of our excellent Wednesday morning "subject" debates, so that a number of my hon. Friends who are equally concerned about it can participate. Nevertheless, I question here and now the assumption by demographic experts that the drift of employment to the south that took place during the 1980s and previous decades will continue into the next century. The recession, which is now ending, has made that a doubtful assumption.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to remind the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that I await the satisfactory outcome of a proposal to which it has objected, because it involves the use of grade 1 land—the proposal involving Longforth farm, in my constituency. The community actually wants a housing development there—which is more or less unique nowadays—because it would bring infrastructure benefits to a town that faces considerable problems.
Let me also put down a marker for legislation next year. I read in the press that legislation to abate noise nuisance may be postponed until the publication of the general election manifesto. I hope that that will not happen, because such legislation is badly needed. It irritates me


that environmental health officers can go around bullying small shop owners because they have broken certain food hygiene rules, but can do nothing to stop noisy neighbours who make the lives of my constituents—and, no doubt, other people—absolute murder.
We have debated the implications of the local government settlement for education on various occasions, but the picture is changing. The capping criteria were confirmed yesterday. We should remember that each local authority's circumstances are different. A limited agreement has been reached in Somerset between my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) and me, and members of the leading group on the county council: they have agreed to take funds from other budgets and put them into education, and we have agreed to support their action in exceeding the cap by 1 per cent., provided that that money is also put into education.
If those councillors keep their side of the bargain, I shall certainly support them; but that does not mean that I agree with the way in which they are using their resources in other respects. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Carlisle) is not present, because he would warmly agree with me. The councillors are spending what will probably turn out to be hundreds of thousands of pounds on litigation, taking their case through the High Court to the Appeal Court and possibly further: they want to ban hunting on the Quantock hills, on the border between my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. However we may feel about the issue—I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) disagrees with me—we must agree that that is not a sensible use of council tax payers' money, and it will not help Somerset's appeal to the Secretary of the Environment for more resources.
There has been a tight financial settlement for local government in the coming year. I hope that every local authority—Somerset probably has a better reputation than many others in this respect—will concentrate its resources on front-line services rather than on bureaucracy and other matters to which I have referred. I hope that Somerset has been dissuaded from setting up county council offices in all the small towns. I also hope that we shall have a better overall settlement next year, as do my hon. Friends, and that the Government will give serious consideration to the area cost adjustment.
In the mean time, as well as considering the way in which resources are allocated between different budgets, we must constantly ask whether schools are using their money effectively. I was delighted to read in The Times on Saturday that at long last—heaven knows, it has taken long enough—we are beginning to see certain reforms in schools. According to the article,
National tests for 11-year-olds are triggering a revival of traditional teaching methods in state primary schools … Multiplication tables, spelling bees, public gold stars rewarding children's progress and dividing classes by ability for some subjects … are making rapid returns as teachers revert to more formal techniques to prepare classes for government tests … Government inspectors have identified the sector"—
the primary sector—
as the weak link in state education and last year reported that one third of lessons for children aged eight to 11 were unsatisfactory.

I am delighted by that sign of improvement. National taxpayers and council charge payers who are paying for education, and for other local authority services, want the best possible value for money. I hope that we shall use the breathing space offered by the coming year's tight budgets to ensure that electors and children are given that value for money, before returning—I hope—to happier financial circumstances.

Mr. Tony Banks: I bet the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) that Somerset charge payers would consider pursuing hunters on the Quantock hills and securing a ban on hunting an excellent use of council money. No doubt I shall be able to debate the issue with him at some future time; but in the five minutes allocated to me I, too, shall speak of value for money. I refer to the value for money—or lack of it in my view—provided by the sale of county hall, the riverside building that was the subject of a recent National Audit Office report, which has now been sent to the Public Accounts Committee.
The building on the other side of the river is now in the hands of a Japanese company, Shirayama Shokusan. As the report admits, it is difficult to obtain details of the sale because of the confidentiality clauses inserted in the contract. Shirayama's original offer price was £60 million; but when the London School of Economics, which was also in the market for county hall, was forced to withdraw, Shirayama tried to force the price down.
The report describes the negotiations that followed. Eventually Shirayama paid the London residuary body £50 million, the extra £10 million being deferred. That £10 million was to be paid in instalments out of profits from the development of county hall, which Shirayama said would become a hotel. The payments would begin in 1997 and end in 2012. Amazingly, Shirayama's statement—quoted in the report—reads as follows:
Consequently, the family has no such illusions or expectations in making any profit from this investment—even for more than two decades.
I do not believe that London will ever see the deferred sum of £10 million, and that strikes me as a pretty rotten deal for Londoners.
What is this Shirayama organisation that now has possession of one of London's prime sites? It is a private company. No independently verifiable information was available either to the Government or to the London residuary body: it is all in the report. No bank guarantee was offered for the purchase price, and other than county hall the company has no known assets in this country. Despite all that, however, Shirayama's offer and its accompanying proposal were accepted gratefully by a grovelling London residuary body, supported by the Government.
What is Shirayama going to do with the building? Proposals reveal that it now aims
To develop facilities that are both exciting and unique for London itself—an attraction for the family such as a family entertainment centre. A more leisure and education orientated concept in comparison to having just a 'Hotel', which would comprise mainly of guests just sleeping over.
That is not the only thing that people do in hotels, as the House found out recently, but the original proposal for which planning consent was given was for a hotel. The company is now changing the proposal.
In November 1994, the concept of a hotel was dumped. Shirayama started talking about a Pacific Asia centre and suspended development pending a so-called London referendum on the use of county hall—what a way to handle a building on one of the prime sites of London, right opposite the Palace of Westminster. What sort of a deal is that for Londoners, who have been robbed by the London residuary body and that peculiar organisation called the Shirayama group, which is controlled by a family? Even the word "family" has a certain resonance in this context. It is not the nuclear family we hear about in this House; it is more like the family we hear about in the Mafia lands of Italy.
There is a public interest in the disposal of county hall that has been totally ignored. The way in which it has been handled by this second-rate, shoddy, incompetent, unimaginative bunch of Ministers must contrast with how Paris would have handled it. If Jacques Chirac had been responsible for the development—and he is a right-winger—what would he have done? Would he have handed it over to the Japanese? Of course he would not. The building would have been used imaginatively and it would be something of which all London could be proud.
Who can have any confidence in the Shirayama organisation to redevelop county hall, either in terms of a concept because it does not have one, or in terms of its future financial backing? The Government could still do something about it by extricating Shirayama from the deal, which I am confident will never turn into a proper development.
If the Government will not do so, I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, as nothing will have happened by the next election, there is an opportunity for the next Labour Government to take back county hall and use it for the purpose for which it was constructed—as the home of a Greater London authority.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The House should not break for the Easter recess without recording our congratulations to the parents of Gravesend grammar school for boys who voted by 70 per cent. to become a grant-maintained school. A number of my hon. Friends representing Kent have tabled early-day motion 962 recording that fact.
It was a successful campaign led by the chairman of the governors, Eric Hammond, who the House will recall was general secretary of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union. He led a successful campaign that was best described in the Evening Standard on 14 March, when he was quoted as saying,
It is not in our interests to be tied to an expensive bureaucracy.
By that, he meant Lib-Lab controlled Kent county council. He continued:
Like Mr. Blair, we are putting the interests of the children first. I would like to see the Labour party becoming wholehearted in its support for grant-maintained schools.
Gravesend grammar school for boys will join nine other schools in the borough of Gravesham that have become grant-maintained and have made considerable progress. St. George's Church of England school has put a great deal of money and effort into improving the site and Northfleet high school for boys said that freedom to

allocate its resources has allowed it to invest in its curriculum, its buildings and better staffing and to transfer resources from administration to the curriculum.
Southfields school, which, sadly, under Kent county council control was at the bottom of the performance tables, has increased its staff by two, reversed and eradicated its deficit, put new furniture in every classroom and provided a new computer network for pupils, and its results are improving all the time. It is extremely encouraging.
The decision is notable because of the hostility of the Labour and Liberal-controlled Kent county council. When that unholy alliance took control of Kent county council, it immediately diverted £100,000 of education funds to fight grant-maintained schools. I have asked the council for the figure that it has spent so far on fighting grant-maintained schools, but it would not tell me. I have calculated that it is already up to about £250,000.
Last Wednesday, we had a debate on education cuts, during which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), speaking for the Opposition, alleged that
under the Conservatives, in the late 1970s, Kent county council undertook a major study of the impact of the voucher system in nursery education? Kent spent £9 million of public money on that experiment, and then abandoned it.
That was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Brightside went on to say:
Yes, it cost £9 million to undertake a prolonged experiment in one part of Kent. The fact that Conservative Members do not know what happened is a good reason why they should start to listen and to learn, instead of talking about inflicting vouchers on the rest of Britain".—[Official Report, 29 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1037.]
Yesterday, on Radio Kent, the hon. Member for Brightside withdrew that allegation. He has been asked to apologise for misleading the House, but so far he has refused to do so. I must admit to a certain amount of sympathy for the hon. Member for Brightside because he received those allegations from the Labour group on Kent county council. They turned out to be bogus allegations and they have embarrassed the Labour party education spokesman in the House.
I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Brightside because now he knows how Kent parents have felt over the past few months as they have been fed a series of bogus figures by the Lib-Lab controlling group on the county council, which claims that Government funding has been cut when in fact it has been increased by 2 per cent. The Lib-Lab pact has imposed a 5 per cent. increase in its council tax demand in Kent and simultaneously is cutting school budgets in real terms, underfunding the teachers' pay settlement, slashing adult education funding by 20 per cent., cutting out discretionary grants to students and hitting many other services.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) whose county of Essex is suffering the same unholy alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrat. He told us that when it came to cutting the education budget—a proposal by the Lib-Lab pact—the Liberals lost their nerve and ran away, hence the Conservative budget, which would have preserved the budgets of schools, has been retained in Essex. I wish only that Kent had had typical Liberals who run away from hard decisions, so that a Conservative county council budget could have preserved education spending in our county. The people


of Kent now have to watch their schools being under-resourced because the Labour party wants to make some cheap party-political point.

Ms Tessa Jowell: I join hon. Members who condemned the manner of the Secretary of State's announcement yesterday about the future of London hospitals. It is a great pity that she did not listen to her Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Wales. I should like to speak about two aspects of her announcement yesterday: first, her decision in relation to Guy's hospital and, secondly, her decision in relation to the kidney unit at Dulwich hospital.
This morning, like other hon. Friends, I received a letter from the Minister for Health. He says, by way of explanation for the decision yesterday:
In reaching this decision she"—
the Secretary of State—
has taken account of the concerns and views expressed during consultation, including those from local Community Health Councils and MPs".
Let me make it clear that, in the course of the consultation to which the Minister of Health refers, the health commission received 52 letters in favour of its proposals, the majority of which were from staff directly or indirectly associated with St. Thomas's hospital. It received 542 letters and 3,000 postcards against and the House received a petition presented by a number of my hon. Friends which comprised 1 million signatures pledged by people up and down the country in support of Guy's hospital.
The Minister's letter continued:
Guy's will continue as a major hospital, especially geared to the needs of local people.
It cannot do so without its accident and emergency department and the necessary in-patient beds to support the work of that department. Indeed, the proposals have been condemned by consultants at Guy's as being clinically unsafe. They do not believe that it is safe to conduct minimally invasive surgery without intensive care and other back-up facilities on site. It will put patients' lives at risk to shuttle them, as proposed, between Guy's and St. Thomas's if something goes wrong.
It is also important to remember that primary care in that part of south-east London is among the worst in the country. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether she intends to put in the £28 million that the health commission said would be essential to ensure that improvements in the quality of primary and community health services could be achieved.
The Minister's letter refers to the accident and emergency department not being closed until alternative and related services are fully equipped to provide improved services for patients. We want to know whether that £28 million will be invested, as without it those improvements cannot be achieved.
I want to raise the issue of the Dulwich kidney unit, which is to be moved to Guy's hospital in the face of opposition by every member of staff and every patient at the unit. The Secretary of State should never again come to the House and say that the national health service reforms are about patient choice. If they were, patients at

the kidney unit—all of whom suffer from long-term and disabling diseases—would have been listened to and their unit would not have been tampered with.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I want to refer to the opposite side of the coin from the many hon. Members who have referred to the way in which local government spends money. I want to talk about how it raises money, with particular reference to the rating revaluation and the uniform business rate. I want to raise three particular issues, but first I shall put them in the context of a constituency which, in the summer of 1993—the year in which businesses were revalued—received assisted area status on the ground of endemic high unemployment, and whose country areas are already covered by the Rural Development Commission in recognition of rural poverty and deprivation.
The first issue is tourism, which is important to my constituency, and caravan holiday parks. There has long been a debate about how we rate holiday homes. Agreement was reached in 1990, but this year the Valuation Office unilaterally threw out that agreement, with the net result of an increase in rateable value at some of the caravan parks of, for example, 130 per cent. for one farmer, of 120 per cent. and 110 per cent. for the two parks belonging to Cinque Ports Leisure, 165 per cent. for Oakley Leisure, and 200 per cent. for Shearburn.
Notwithstanding the transitional grant, it does not take a genius to work out that even at the end of five years, those businesses will not even reach their uniform business rate level by the time that they have to be revalued again. I strongly recommend that the Valuation Office sits down with the industry and works out a long-term solution to the problem of valuing caravan parks, so that businesses do not face such crippling demands.
My second point relates to the pub industry. Those of us who have followed the issue for some time know that beer orders have led directly to some very large rental increases by companies such as Inntrepreneur. I understand that, in the revaluation, the Valuation Office had to take the size of rentals into account. The only problem is that many of the pubs are now being let to holding managers—so that the companies can hang on to the licences—at rents of anything between nothing and £160 per week. It is hard when a local pub faces an average increase of 50 per cent., with some such as the Queen's Head at Icklesham and the Bridge Inn at Winchelsea facing double that. Again, I recommend that the Valuation Office takes into account the reality of pub rents in that sector and significantly reduces the valuations, taking a more realistic account of the rents being charged in Inntrepreneur pubs.
Finally, I want to refer to the discrepancies between similar businesses in similar locations. Some of the discrepancies in Hastings have been very large. I was first alerted to the problem when one business woman told me that she had had an increase of 35 per cent. in an area where, over seven years, her takings had gone down from £3,000 to £700 a week. Since then, complaints have poured in from all sectors, including manufacturing and coastal amusements. Of course, in the latter case the problem has been eased because of the provision in the Finance Bill relating to amusement machine tax. Businesses feel very sore about the valuation increases.
The differences between businesses have resulted in an average—calculated by Hastings borough council—increase of 30 per cent. for leisure businesses and 26 per cent. for commercial businesses.
My hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) wish to be associated with my remarks about this problem. East Sussex has two district valuation offices—one in Brighton, where the average increase in rateable value has been 5 per cent. for Brighton, 5 per cent. for Hove and 6 per cent. for Lewes; and one in Eastbourne, where the average increase has been 24 per cent. for Wealden, 20 per cent. for Rother, 17 per cent. for Hastings and 22 per cent. for Eastbourne. Nobody understands why there should be such a difference. The Valuation Office must investigate that fully and at least run some test cases to find out where the discrepancies have arisen and why.
In the meantime, valuation offices will be swamped with appeals, some of which started a few days ago. The problem will take years to sort out, so the effect on business cashflows will be drastic. Businesses need reassurance that the problems will be resolved, that the appeals will be heard quickly and that financial hardship will be minimised. Perhaps the increases should not be enforced until all that is sorted out.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Several hon. Members have raised the issue of education cuts. In Derbyshire, there is great anger and bewilderment about education cuts in that county, which are shared by teachers, parents and governors. I have previously explained the details of those cuts to the House.
The bewilderment arises because people do not understand how the Government can act in the way that they have with standard spending assessments over a period of time, without taking into account the position in schools. If only, somehow, Members of Parliament and others could get the ear of the Secretary of State and explain the details, perhaps, as with taking icons to the tsar, the position would be understood and she would respond. However, that is not the case. The Government understand the position, but they are unwilling to change. That fact has created considerable anger.
A number of teachers were among those at the demonstration, rally and lobby last Wednesday, when constituents presented massive numbers of petitions to hon. Members representing Derbyshire. If one had asked those teachers why they has come on that lobby, they would have said that they felt that it was their duty to be there. They never imagined that, in any circumstances, they would turn up at a lobby on educational matters, but the circumstances have forced them to do so.
Councillors and, in particular, governors in Derbyshire have been placed in the most unenviable position. The problem for governors is whether to set deficit budgets or to resign from their positions. In Dronfield school in my constituency, a number of governors have taken the resignation route. That has occurred with the entire body at Newbold school in the Chesterfield constituency. Individuals have had to make almost impossible choices. No one should be placed in the position in which parents, teachers and governors have been placed in Derbyshire. That view must be clear to the Government before we go into recess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned disablement and the closure of the Remploy works at Alfreton, with the loss of 74 jobs. I associate myself entirely with his comments. It will be no surprise to the Leader of the House that I should like to use this opportunity to say something more about disablement and the treatment of disabled people.
The measure that all organisations representing disabled people want to become law—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—has been shunted away, and has had to stand in a Committee queue. Its consideration by the House is being held up. A number of private Members' Bills have been introduced. Four have already been dealt with, and the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill is in Committee.
The Government have had no dispute with any of those Bills. Two of them have been Government Bills and have been picked up by private Members. Despite the fact that the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was supported by 175 votes to nil, and despite overwhelming support across all parties for that measure, the Government have quietly pushed the thing away—we have not seen blood let on the Floor of the House, as happened in the previous year—so that it must stand in the queue in the Committee corridor. That wait must end.
I hope that the Bill in Standing Committee C will get through this morning and that, after the Easter recess, we will be able to move forward with the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Much must be done in connection with that Bill, given that it fills the gaps in the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to ordinary hon. Members' concerns that the measure that they strongly supported has not been given the proper consideration that it should have received.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I say how grateful the House is to my right hon. Friend Leader of the House for being here for the debate? He sets a standard that will be difficult for his successor to follow, and he has covered most Government Departments.
Having served both as a junior Minister and, while the Chief Whip allowed, as the parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), I am reminded of the two words used in memorial to his father—fairness and integrity. Those characteristics are common to his father, to him and to the Secretary of State for Health.
There are two sides to the health issue. One involves the revelation in today's Daily Mail that the Labour party does not propose to spend new money, that it wants to use tricks, and that it thinks that the health service makes a minimal contribution to the health of the nation. That issue deserves a debate by itself.
On the changes in London, for some time, I have been campaigning to persuade the Ministry for Defence to let go of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich, which it said that it would need until the end of the century. I said that it would change its mind. I also told the local health commissioning agency and the Greenwich Healthcare trust that they should try as hard as they can to bring most of Greenwich district hospital and Brook


general hospital services across Shooters hill to the Queen Elizabeth military hospital site. I am glad that yesterday's announcement confirmed that.
Although arguments persist about the neurosciences and neurosurgery—they have been going on since before I was a Member of Parliament and I first heard them in 1974—it is right to move in the cardio-thoracic services, although, over the decades, many campaigns have taken place to keep regional services outside the centre of London. I suspect that, in time, the commissioning agencies will allow neuroscience departments to be based further out from London, whether at Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup, or further out on the line from Maidstone to Guildford.
I have talked to doctors in Greenwich and those covering my constituency of Eltham. They want decisions to be made. When I ask them whether Guy's and St. Thomas's acute services are duplicated, they say no. I understand that the medical staff at Guy's and St. Thomas's agree that those services should not be duplicated and that, whichever site is chosen for the main acute hospital, people will benefit if they are brought together. The longer the delay, the more resources are sucked out of the region between inner and outer London—the location of my constituency—and the worse services become.
Secondly, I wish that the media and Members of Parliament would say more about the development of primary and community services. In my constituency, the Feathers project, the Hilltop nursery at Memorial hospital and the developments in general practitioner services have made an immense difference to people's lives.
I do not want to get into a vendetta with the Evening Standard. However, I was rung up by one of its journalists this morning who said that it was conducting a survey into whether Tory Back Benchers would vote against the Government or with the Labour party on a debate on London's health service. I asked what the question was. He said that it is all about Bart's, so I said that some concerns existed in relation to Bart's, but that that was not the issue that most people were getting excited about.
The journalist then said that the question was not about Bart's but about something else. I said that I was not capable of commenting on such matters, but that I could tell him that yesterday's announcement in a written answer about developing community, primary and hospital services for people in my constituency was much to be welcomed, and that I would give my loyal support not only to the Government but to the practice of developing medicine, which had a continuity going back even to the last Labour Government.

Mr. Jim Dowd: I shall be as brief as I can. I know that most people blanch when hon. Members say that, but I shall try to stick to that promise.
On yesterday's announcement—if that is what it was—on changes to acute service provision, particularly in our part of south-east London, I endorse what other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), have said about the validity of the process. A distinct feeling exists in my part of Lewisham that yesterday's announcement was simply the latest stage

in a conspiracy to reduce hospital provision in south-east London, and London generally, which was launched pre-Tomlinson, and which has been unaltered by anything that has happened.
I served on an area health authority—the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark area health authority—in 1976. I went on to serve on its successor—the Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority. In 1976, at least 16 hospitals existed in south-east London alone. Today, there are but four, so it is not the process of change that people in south-east London are worried about; it is the nature of that change.
The old area health authority had to be suspended by the then Secretary of State, Patrick, now Lord, Jenkin, because of its refusal to support the closure of St. John's hospital in the early 1980s. That hospital has closed. Therefore, the process of change in health care acute provision in south-east London is nothing new.
It is the third time in precious few years that a major consultation exercise has taken place in Lewisham and in my part of south-east London. The first was on the establishment of the then "flagship" Lewisham and Guy's trust. The second was after that was dismantled and Lewisham was set up as a separate trust and Guy's and St. Thomas' were put together for other reasons, and the third has been on the future of those plans since. On every occasion, there has been overwhelming opposition but it has counted for nothing at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) detailed the figures involved and the petition that was presented to the House.
Most of the responses to the health authority's most recent consultation document came from people in my part of Lewisham, apart from those which came from people in the area immediately around Guy's hospital itself, which is understandable. That was largely because those people use Lewisham and King's predominantly for accident and emergency services and know that those hospitals cannot cope as they are, let alone if the accident and emergency department at Guy's were to close.
Even if the money earmarked for improvements at Lewisham, for example, were spent, it would be enough only to bring that hospital up to an acceptable standard. At a recent meeting with the regional health authority, one of the officials admitted that the department was undersized. When I asked him what that meant, he said that it was too small and inadequate. I hope that there will be opportunities for the House to debate and vote on these matters, which is the least that the people of south-east London deserve.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We have had a useful morning of speeches, which has proved the wisdom of moving this debate to Wednesday mornings. The fact that 20 Back Benchers have contributed is probably a record, and it is important that we maintain this sort of opportunity for hon. Members. I should like to comment on as many as possible of those speeches, but 20 is a lot so I may have to be brief. I congratulate the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on setting us off to such a good start by proving that a very strong case can be made in a short and concise speech.
The point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the way in which the death warrant for Bart's has been issued in an answer to a parliamentary written question is one


that should concern the whole House. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House share his concern not only about the decision that was made yesterday but about the way in which that decision was announced to hon. Members. We should not underestimate the importance of abiding by the appropriate procedures in such cases.
Several hon. Members raised the question of health care in London and the decision by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday. The points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) as well as by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will have to be taken on board. It is important that the House has a full opportunity to come back to the issue.
As my hon. Friends have said, it is a question not just of the Secretary of State not consulting but of deceiving people and pretending that the Government are listening to patients when, in fact, they are depriving patients of choice and not creating the localised hospitals that the Secretary of State for Wales advocated just this week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, it is not the process of change that alarms people but the nature of the proposed changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made a very sensitive speech dealing with the difficult issue of her constituent Nicholas Ingram, who is awaiting execution in the United States. Every hon. Member should be worried about that case, and the silence in which my hon. Friend was heard demonstrates that we all understand the difficulties facing her constituent and his family. I hope that the Prime Minister will hear of her comments and take heed of her request.
The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) raised again the subject of construction contracts, which was raised in a similar debate before the previous recess. We share many of his concerns about the future of the construction industry. I hope that, as well as noting the points that he made, the Government will take on board the need to release the capital receipts of local authorities, which would do much more to boost the construction industry and quickly counter problems such as unemployment. I do not understand why the Government refuse to act upon that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) raised another problem which concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House—the dangers of joyriding and the tragic deaths that have occurred in his constituency and, I am afraid, in all too many of our constituencies. Many of us are extremely worried about that. It is a fact that, compared with 1979, we now have twice the chance of becoming victims of car crime and three times the chance of becoming victims of burglary or violent crime. Many people do not understand why crime has risen so dramatically under the Government or why the Government do not take those problems more seriously.
The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) raised points about local government with which I do not want to deal in detail. However, with any local government reorganisation, there is always the problem of balancing decisions made on the basis of numbers with decisions about what constitutes a local community. I do not think it should be just a numbers game.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), who I am glad to see here, raised some very real problems associated with the travel industry and in particular those affecting our constituents who think that they have got a good deal and discount only to find that they have not got all that they expected because of the ties that go with the deal. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, while I share his concerns, some of which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), it would have been wise, especially today, for the hon. Gentleman to have mentioned his interest in the travel industry, if only to say that his comments were not based on any self-interest.

Sir Peter Fry: Would the hon. Lady like to specify what self-interest I am supposed to have? I have been in the House quite long enough to know that I must declare any interests. I have no interest in the travel industry. Would she substantiate that challenge or kindly withdraw it?

Mrs. Taylor: I was simply referring to the fact that the Register of Members' Interests says that the hon. Gentleman is associated with the coach industry and with the Sally Line. I am not saying that he was speaking on their behalf but it would have been wise to declare that interest to show that he was not.

Sir Peter Fry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The interest, which relates to advice given to the Sally Line and to some coach operators, is nothing whatsoever to do with the advertising of air fares or holiday insurance. That surely is stretching the argument about interest far too far. If we are going to get that kind of jibe from members of the Opposition Front Bench, perhaps it is time that some of us got back at some Opposition Members who are taking money and not declaring it in the Register of Members' Interests.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I think that hon. Members are fully aware that it is up to the hon. Member concerned if he or she feels that an interest should be declared.

Mrs. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that if the hon. Gentleman has any such information he should contact the Registrar of Members' Interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned job losses at Remploy in his constituency. Many of us are concerned about the long-term future of Remploy and understand the difficulties that face many disabled people working in those situations. I know that travelling to appropriate places of work is particularly difficult for disabled people. I also share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that the Government's unwillingness to consider his Bill further and give it time is causing difficulties for many people.
I found incredible the comments of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) about education. I found his speech incredible. He made many attacks on teachers for taking Baker days which were, of course, introduced by a Conservative Government. More incredibly, he criticised pupils for not learning enough and tried to blame teachers. He made the strange suggestion that there were more teachers now than there had been. I have checked the figures. In 1979, there were 425,000 full-time equivalents in England and Wales. In 1993, the last year


for which figures are available, there were 365,000—a drop of 60,000. That means that class sizes are increasing and that there are now more than 1 million children in primary classes of more than 30. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the quality of education, he should pay more attention to the need to reduce class sizes.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: No because I have no time.
The issue of the water industry was raised this morning. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) have ably outlined the difficulties that will face us if the Government try to impose on the regulator an instruction to introduce compulsory water metering. During their time in the House, both my hon. Friends have highlighted the problems of the water industry, and are to be congratulated on that.
If we have compulsory water metering or any forced extension of water metering, it will be hard on many people, including those who can least afford it, but who need the service. The water industry was developed as a public service because of public health considerations. If we go down the wrong track and if people are unable to afford this vital service—it is not a commodity—we shall create many problems for ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough has had much success in her campaign on water, not least getting Yorkshire Water to abandon its approach to compulsory water metering. I hope that other water companies will follow suit. Compulsory metering is not the answer to conservation problems or to the problem of pricing; my hon. Friends are right. I have learnt with interest that the water industry itself—both the Water Services Association of England and Wales and the Water Companies Association—has criticised the decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It says:
We hope this doesn't mean the thin end of the wedge towards universal compulsory metering for all domestic customers. We would certainly fight that on behalf of our customers very hard indeed.
Even the industry does not agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose announcement yesterday was worrying.
This has been a useful debate despite the limited time. I congratulate right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part and I hope that we can use such occasions equally well in future.

Mr. Barry Field: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for allowing me a few precious seconds from his time to enable me to record, as I am sure the House would like me to do, my thanks to not one, but three Secretaries of State for the Environment for the introduction, on behalf of all my constituents, of a unitary authority—the first in the United Kingdom—which met on Monday this week. Does that not show that Conservatives believe in a lighter touch on the tiller of government? At a stroke, the Isle of Wight has gone from being the most over-governed constituency in the United Kingdom to one of the least governed.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), for whose words I am grateful, has increased to 21 the number of people who have spoken from the Back Benches in this debate. That is a record, certainly during the three years in which I have wound up these debates, and amply justifies the combined efforts of myself, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) which succeeded in reinstating, in the new form of "matters to be considered", what used to be known as the recess Adjournment motion.
Most hon. Members, recognising that I am likely to be under some time constraint by the end of the debate, have kindly acknowledged that what they are principally asking me to do is to ensure that their points are passed on in the appropriate quarters. I immediately give that undertaking. There is, however, one additional point to insert which enables me, I hope with absolute justification and courtesy, to avoid commenting on four or five speeches.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) by now will know, and as the world will know shortly through the annunciator, his private notice question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been granted for this afternoon. There will, therefore, be opportunities for my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) to raise further the matters they have sought to raise with me today. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is alerted to the points that they have raised with me.
I shall briefly deal with as many of the speeches as I can comment on in the seven minutes remaining to me. Like everyone who has spoken in the debate, I understand and respect the reasons for the way in which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) referred to the case of her former constituent, Mr. Ingram, and his situation in the United States. Hon Members also have every understanding of the efforts that Mrs. Ingram is making. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to the letter the Prime Minister had written to Mrs. Ingram, of which I have a copy. My right hon. Friend concluded:
With the deepest regret, there are no proper grounds for the British Government to intervene with the state of Georgia.
I cannot add to that from the Dispatch Box, but I will, of course, ensure that the hon. Lady's remarks this morning are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his return from Washington later today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) spoke about the Latham report to which, as he knows, I have adopted a sympathetic approach. I can tell my right hon. Friend, as he probably already knows, that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is prepared, in principle, to consider legislation on contractual matters relating to the construction industry and that he intends to issue consultation papers shortly. In my capacity as the person responsible for the legislative programme, I can tell my right hon. Friend that I have taken careful note of his remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) referred to a number of aspects of education in Bedfordshire and made points about parents, teachers and the county council. He will not expect me to be able to cover all of them. However, I make the point that the updated parents charter launched in June 1994 makes a significant contribution to, and underpins, the efforts of parents in taking the interest in education that my hon. Friend is rightly anxious to see.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) attracted sympathy from all hon. Members with his remarks about joyriding and about crime generally. I say, gently, that the hon. Gentleman might have referred, in calling for the Government to take action, to the fact that it is only three years since the Government took speedy action and introduced the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992. The Act significantly increased the penalties available for the kind of joyriding that the hon. Gentleman described. More recently, we ensured that secure training orders, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, would apply to persistent joyriders between 12 and 14. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party abstained from the vote on the proposition, and therefore did not support it.
The Government have acted significantly to increase the penalties for causing death by dangerous driving. Fourteen to 17-year-olds can be detained under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for up to the adult maximum of 10 years. That Act was affected by more recent legislation concerning the adult maximum. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the problems have been, and will continue to be, taken seriously.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made some points about local government in Devon which he wanted me to pass on. Some of the points

were made directly to me only last weekend or the weekend before when I undertook engagements in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I am getting representations about Devon from all directions; I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is aware of them.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a number of points about Remploy. I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government give substantial support to Remploy—about £90 million a year out of a total support of employment programme of £140 million. The Government cannot, of course, entirely insulate Remploy, any more than any other company, from competition, although they are working with the company to tackle the current downturn in textiles and are helping it with diversification programmes. On Alfreton, the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged that in the proposals currently under discussion—the merger date has been postponed until the discussions with the employees and the unions have been concluded—the company would intend to ensure that transport was available for those who needed it and would meet any additional transport costs. If the proposal were to be adopted, at least some of the hon. Gentleman's objections would be met.
In the remaining minute, I clearly do not have time to cover the subjects of water charges, education and other matters in Kent and Essex, population growth in Somerset, county hall and the like. I have taken careful note of all those points and I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Although we have a few more hours to go, I shall conclude by wishing the Chair and the House a happy Easter recess.

Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)

1 pm

Mr. Michael Alison: I am glad to have this brief opportunity to raise the matter of statutory compensation for individuals whose land has been taken, used or damaged and whose entitlement to compensation arises from some provision in law. The scope of my concern includes the taking of land for highway works, the use of land for pipelines and cables, and damage to land caused by coalmining. A number of my constituents have concerns and interests in those categories, and there can be few Members of Parliament who do not have constituents affected by those matters.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in his place. Although I shall touch on matters that concern both the Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry, the responsibility for administering the compulsory purchase procedure rests with the Department of the Environment.
My concern is not on this occasion about the use of compulsory powers. I am focusing on the right of those affected to be paid proper compensation and, where there is any dispute, to secure a just and proper settlement. It is contrary to the intention of the law and to natural justice for claimants to be exposed to excessive delay and considerable costs in order to secure payment where they reasonably believe that the compensation offered is inadequate.
Where a claim arises, the parties normally seek to settle the amount of compensation by negotiation; where they cannot reach agreement, there is a right to refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal. That tribunal is a division of the High Court, and it has the duty to resolve disputed valuations that arise in a wide range of circumstances.
Appeals to the High Court can he made relatively easily by way of case stated by the tribunal. For many, that arrangement works perfectly well, but it takes a considerable time for a case to be brought before the Lands Tribunal, and the costs involved are invariably substantial. I make no criticisms of the Lands Tribunal, but its provision is not enough to secure justice for those who are entitled to, but lack, compensation.
The tribunal is not a suitable remedy, because many of the sums in dispute amount to only a few thousand pounds. Not many people will assume the risk of instructing counsel, their solicitor, their chartered surveyor and, where necessary, other experts, to prepare a case for the Lands Tribunal to pursue a claim of perhaps only £5,000. The cost of those advisers will be considerable, and the fees will be payable as the case progresses—spanning perhaps two, and often more, years.
Sustaining the case, evaluating the arguments and attending to all matters without knowing the outcome places considerable stress on all those involved. Farmers are usually naturally isolated in their business, and the stress involved can have a damaging effect on their health and viability. The risk of being faced with the costs of the other party to the dispute is a further major deterrent to going to the tribunal.
The incidence of delay and risk, and the need for constant reappraisal, is a normal, necessary and unavoidable part of going to law. But it must be remembered that the claim that I am discussing arises because the claimant has had his land taken, used or

abused by the other party, usually under the provision of statutory powers, for a particular purpose. The claimant sometimes has no choice but to go to law. But that approach can effectively deny him the right to his due compensation.
I can illustrate my concern by reference to three scenarios. The first involves the taking of land by the Department of Transport—now the Highways Agency—for a new road scheme. Many property owners suffer loss during the construction period, for which they should be paid compensation. In a paper sent to the Department of Transport on 18 February 1994, the Country Landowners Association set out 23 cases of serious loss to landowners.
The cases ranged from cows that had died after eating hay in a field into which noxious dust had blown, the loss of production in a factory after a drain became blocked by silt and the building was flooded, and the loss of water from a metered farm water supply pipe that had to be diverted, but was faultily reinstated. All those losses arose as a direct result of the construction works for which the claimants' land was acquired. The losses were undeniable, but liability for the claims was denied by the Department of Transport and, in the case of the dead cows, the contractor had gone out of business.
Settlements are made on the basis of third-party claims, but they are made at a low level, without admission of liability. The claimants feel, rightly, that they are entitled to compensation for their true loss. They decide, however, that the difference between the offer that they may receive and their full loss—or their full loss when no offer is made—is too little to justify a reference to the Lands Tribunal. As a result, they feel—and are, in truth—let down and cheated by the system.
Secondly, the right of water companies to serve notice on owners and occupiers, and subsequently to enter on to land to carry out work, can create difficulties. The claimant is left to make a claim on the water company after the works have started, and he will still be seeking payment for the whole or part of his claim for loss of value and disturbance when the works are finished, and sometimes long after. That allows the water companies, which are now in the private sector and aim to maximise profits for their shareholders, to use their powerful position to oblige the claimant to come chasing after them for compensation.
I know that water companies claim that they do not abuse their powers and, from their perspective, they may be right in most cases. But for the landowner and occupier, the position is different. The right to use the land must, without demur, be made available to the water company, and it is then a matter of trying to settle the proper basis for compensation. That is akin to a stern chase—trying to catch up a departing body from behind.
The problems for claimants include disputes over the basic value of the land, the cost to the business caused by the works themselves and the reinstatement costs of works to the surface, to land drains and to non-agricultural properties. Where the claim is not agreed—the negotiations are often difficult—the owner has the option of accepting the water company's offer, having already suffered the works, or of taking the matter to the Lands Tribunal.
Few people have taken water companies to the tribunal, because the disputed sums are usually too small for it to be worth while. Water companies know better than


anyone else that the cost and risk of a reference encourages, if not obliges, the claimant to accept their usually inadequate offer.
The third scenario is the worst to come to my notice. It concerns one of my constituents, who is currently awaiting the outcome of arbitration with British Coal following subsidence damage to his property. My constituent could not settle the claims for compensation by agreement and was obliged, because of the severity of his problems, to take the matter further. Rather than refer his problems to the Lands Tribunal—a draconian step, for the reasons that I have already given—my constituent opted for the alternative of arbitration.
The latest Government advisory leaflet applicable in such circumstances states:
you have the right to take the matter to the Lands Tribunal. However, in the majority of cases arbitration offers a cheaper, quicker and less formal way of resolving disputes. You have the right to choose arbitration as an alternative to the Lands Tribunal.
In the event, however, recourse to arbitration for my constituent has proved to be something of a nightmare, and the very negation of cheapness or informality. In that context, I hasten to add that I make no comments on the merits of the case before the arbitrator, which is still under consideration. Nor do I make any criticism of the part played by British Coal in the unresolved claims subject to arbitration.
My criticisms are directed at the official advice given to claimants who may hesitate to go to the Lands Tribunal. In the case of my constituent, which is now subject to arbitration, British Coal judged that the issues involved and the possible consequences in terms of wider compensation claims flowing from the outturn of the case, made it prudent for it to take steps—which naturally British Coal could afford—to protect itself.
British Coal duly instructed counsel, and it was necessary and prudent for my constituent to do the same. Many issues were raised during the arbitration hearings which required the involvement of many advisers, who prepared expert evidence and attended the arbitration. I could not attend any of the 25 days of the arbitration hearing, which were spread over 12 months, but the costs in the matter for a private citizen have been unimaginable. My constituent will have committed more than £100,000 in pursuing his case by the time the arbitrator gives his decision.
That is not low cost. It is not informal. Whatever the merits of the case—that, I repeat, is for the arbitrator alone to consider, and I make no comments on it—the route suggested by the official Government guidance is misleading. It has resulted in financial and emotional strain on my constituent, which cannot have been the objective of arbitration as propounded in the official guidance. It comes much closer to a Lands Tribunal hearing.
I should therefore like to propose two changes to the existing procedures to provide for greater fairness and accessibility. First, the claimant should have a right to require a dispute to be referred to mediation. That is an established yet informal basis for settling matters between two parties. It involves an independent assessor who is trained in the discussion and resolution of disputes. He hears the case of each side, with each party normally attending in person with the assistance of an adviser such as a surveyor, lawyer or other expert.
The mediator talks with the parties to try to ensure a shared and compatible understanding of the issues and arguments involved in the circumstances, and to facilitate the acceptance of a settlement which recognises the strengths and weaknesses, or rights and wrongs, of each side. That is an informal process with separate discussions at the outset and, often, a round table discussion as matters progress. That process has proved effective in other spheres, and it has been used extensively to good effect in other areas of dispute, particularly in the construction industry. It is cheap and quick.
Mediation can do much to ensure the payment of proper compensation to claimants. If they are unhappy about a settlement, they can seek mediation and have their arguments heard and debated with the other side. Often that opportunity will be enough to resolve the claims on a basis acceptable to both sides. More than 80 per cent. of cases referred to mediation in other areas of dispute are resolved by agreement, such is the benefit of structured discussion between the parties.
The party in the dispute which enjoys the benefit of rights given by Parliament should be obliged to agree to the process where the claimant seeks mediation. However, the process is not, and cannot be, binding, and the ultimate right to refer a matter to the Lands Tribunal should remain. The process should be monitored, and an independent person should be appointed to supervise the process and to make recommendations to fetter the power of any party where that party consistently fails to reach agreement or accept the outcome of the mediation process.
My second proposal is aimed at those instances where a point of law or clarification arises. Mediation will not be appropriate where a matter of principle affecting the compensation code is involved. In such cases, a direct reference to the Lands Tribunal can be made, but again, the claimant may be deterred from pursuing what he considers to be a just entitlement to a higher payment than the offer he has received.
In such circumstances, the party liable to pay the compensation under statute should pay the costs of the reference to the Lands Tribunal to establish the point of law. When that has been determined, the parties should negotiate again and, in the absence of agreement, should seek mediation or go to the Lands Tribunal. That choice should again be for the claimant to decide.
In order to ensure that injustice is removed from the process of assessing compensation, which I have only illustrated, I hope that the House will support me, and that the Government will accept the need to make the resolution of disputes over proper compensation truly accessible, informal and low-cost.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. He has explained most eloquently the concerns of his constituents, and he will probably find that those concerns are shared by many constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members.
As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, he has touched on several areas that are primarily the responsibility of other Ministers, particulary those in the Department of


Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I trust that he will forgive me, then, if I am a little cautious about trespassing into their territory and refrain from addressing directly the details of the cases to which he referred. I believe that my right hon Friend accepts my difficulties in that regard.
My Department has overall responsibility for setting the legislative framework in which compulsory purchase orders are made and under which the compensation code for such orders is applied. My right hon. Friend may rest assured that there is no shortage of advice as to how we could improve the system, and the issues he has raised are among those to which our attention has often been drawn.
I fully appreciate the distress that can be caused to people when confronted with a compulsory purchase order. The Government are keen to ensure that such distress is minimised for all concerned—ensuring prompt settlement of compensation claims is just one element in that process. I am sure everyone would agree that claimants should not be subject to excessive delay, and should not have to meet additional costs in order to secure the compensation which is rightly theirs.
Equally, however, there will always be occasions when it is impossible to reach agreement on the level of compensation to be paid, or where there is a dispute about some point of law. What we seek is the most efficient means of settling such disputes. My right hon. Friend has suggested one way of dealing with them, and his ideas are interesting and extremely valuable.
However, I think it may be worth while spending a few minutes explaining how the Lands Tribunal came into being. It was set up by Act of Parliament in 1949 to replace a system which provided for disputes to be decided by official arbitrators appointed from a panel. The president and members of the tribunal are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who, in consultation with the Council on Tribunals, has a general responsibility for the statutory provisions that apply to tribunals and other forms of arbitration.
It is clear to me that there are two principal reasons for going to the Lands Tribunal—and I note that my right hon. Friend acknowledged those reasons. The first reason is to reach agreement on the amount of compensation, and the second is to resolve some point of law. In the latter case, I think that there can be no argument that the role of the Lands Tribunal must be maintained. It has had the key role in interpreting the statutory framework of the compensation code and establishing how the provisions work in practice. It would be foolish to do away with that body of experience and knowledge, and I acknowledge that that is far from being what my right hon. Friend suggested.
It has become almost proverbial wisdom to say that the delay and costs of Lands Tribunal hearings are a deterrent. However, I suspect that some of the criticisms levelled at the tribunal are, on closer inspection, a little harsh. The worries about delay are twofold; first, the time it takes to secure a hearing, and secondly, the procedures adopted during the hearing itself.
However, the parties to the dispute can both help to ensure delays are minimised, and I believe that my right hon. Friend will accept that fact. The delay in securing a hearing date often arises from the conduct of the parties themselves, and when the case is heard, it proceeds at a pace largely determined by the parties.
For example, the tribunal will normally permit adjournments where active negotiation is taking place, and will normally meet the wishes of counsel, solicitors and expert witnesses so far as is reasonable. It is also possible—at the discretion of the tribunal, and if all parties agree—to determine the case on the basis of written representations.
Furthermore, there is much concern about costs. The general principle of the compensation code is that the costs of a claim are regarded as part of the consequential costs of the compulsory acquisition. As such, they will normally be reimbursed by the acquiring authority. In addition, it is possible to adopt a "sealed offer" procedure similar to a payment into court, which allows either party to ensure that costs do not go beyond what they can afford.
Even so, there have been from time to time calls for a new system to replace or work alongside the Lands Tribunal. Various reports have suggested a more informal procedure for settling disputes—usually, something akin to the small claims court.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Country Landowners Association has recently prepared a draft policy paper on "Compulsory Acquisition and Payment" which suggests, among other things, the introduction of a non-binding mediation process to resolve some cases without the need to go to the Lands Tribunal. We are still considering the many suggestions in the paper. We are also aware that the mediation proposal has support from other respected bodies, including the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the National Farmers Union.
I know that there is always a concern that such papers will be warmly welcomed by Ministers, and then studiously ignored. I hope that I can assure my right hon. Friend that, this time at least, that will not be the case. Indeed, senior officials from my Department are meeting representatives from the CLA next week to discuss the ideas in the policy paper. My right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment in detail on the CLA's proposals at present, but we shall set out the Government's response to them in due course.
Instead, I shall address some of the points that my right hon. Friend raised. He suggested that, where a compensation claim gives rise to consideration of a point of law, a direct reference to the Lands Tribunal should be made before returning to mediation, and that, in such circumstances, the acquiring authority should pay the costs of the reference to the Lands Tribunal.
In fact, I understand that that may already be possible under the current statutory arrangements. Under the Lands Tribunal rules of 1975, the tribunal has the power to order any preliminary point of law to be disposed of at a preliminary hearing. That power is frequently invoked, and has the advantage that the parties need not incur the costs of compiling evidence on valuation until the preliminary issue, which may determine liability, has been decided. Where the preliminary issue is of general significance in other cases, it would, I agree, seem reasonable that the acquiring authority rather than the claimant should bear the costs.
However, for straightforward matters of disagreement over compensation, I can see a case for seeking alternative methods of resolving disputes. Indeed, there are already other options available. It is open to the acquiring authority and the claimant to put their case to informal arbitration without the need to refer to the Lands Tribunal.
I acknowledge that that does not address my right hon. Friend's argument that a statutory right for claimants should exist. However, although I do not entirely rule that out, I am sure that he will appreciate that such a scheme would need careful consideration, not least because we would need to be clear about its precise relationship with the Lands Tribunal. It must not be forgotten that, in most cases, compensation is settled by direct negotiation involving professionals and experts engaged by the parties, so the costs of such arrangements may not in practice be less than a reference to the Lands Tribunal.
I freely admit that, in any assessment of the current arrangements for compulsory purchase and compensation, we are hampered by the lack of recent research and information to support the arguments one way or the other about how the system operates, and its impact on those affected. To fill that gap, my Department has signalled the intention to fund a research project to consider, among other things, how existing compulsory purchase order procedures could be improved, and how those at the sharp end feel about the system.
My right hon. Friend and the CLA may rest assured that we shall use their valuable contributions to inform and direct that research. When the results are available, we shall be in a much better position to assess how the current system operates in practice, and to pinpoint exactly what room there is for improvement.
I started by expressing my unwillingness to wander into areas for which my Department does not have direct responsibility. However, I do not wish to leave the subject without making some brief general observations on the points that my right hon. Friend raised about third-party claims, about British Coal and about water companies' rights of entry. He will appreciate that I cannot speak in detail on the cases he mentioned, but they raise some issues of general interest that I am sure that he would like me to address.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the paper presented to the Highways Agency by the Country Landowners Association. That must be a matter for the two bodies to discuss between themselves, and I hope that it will be possible to make progress soon. However, I understand that the agency does not consider that the paper properly reflects the legal and contractual position.
In most cases involving damage to property during construction, liability is clear, and the claims are dealt with by the contractor's insurers and loss adjusters, or by the district valuer acting on behalf of the agency. The burden of proof of the validity and the amount of claims is essentially the same. In only a handful of cases is liability in dispute, and it is those cases that cause real difficulty.
The Highways Agency is currently discussing with construction industry representatives ways in which the delays in dealing with such claims might be overcome, but I am sure that there can be no disagreement with the principle that we must do what we can to avoid a situation in which genuine claimants are unduly penalised because of a dispute between other parties as to liability.
My right hon. Friend raises a particular concern about the powers available to privatised water companies, but the broad issue is one that applies and has applied to all statutory undertakers, both before and after privatisation. Such bodies have a statutory responsibility to provide a public service, and Parliament has consistently recognised their need for powers to acquire land compulsorily and to enter on to land in order to discharge that responsibility.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of compensation for the laying of sewers and water pipes was considered in the Water Industries Act 1991. That provides that, where pipe-laying work leads to depreciation in the value of land, the claimant may receive compensation for the loss in the value of his interest, and for any damage caused in the same way, as if there had been a compulsory acquisition. Resolution of disputes over compensation are dealt with by the Lands Tribunal, which applies the normal compensation rules.
The issue, then, is the suitability of the Lands Tribunal to decide such cases—a point that I have already addressed. However, I must make it clear that there would be no question of utilities' using such powers to maximise profits; the compulsory powers remaining with nationalised industries after privatisation relate only to the statutory functions of those industries, and cannot be used to acquire or to enter on to land not needed for those functions.
As for subsidence, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the particular case here and now, as the arbitrator has yet to reach his conclusions. However, it is important to recognise that the statutory framework in relation to coal-mining subsidence is significantly different from that connected with the use of compulsory purchase powers or compulsory access rights.
The primary obligation in the relevant legislation is to repair any damage attributable to coal-mining subsidence. Compensation arises only where repairs are not practicable or effective, and is paid in lieu of the primary obligation to repair. The basic obligation, then, is not to compensate but to repair.
Of course disputes arise from time to time. As my right hon. Friend said, the subsidence legislation already provides a means of resolving them. For householders, there is a special low-cost arbitration scheme, which in the vast majority of cases provides a quick and inexpensive solution to disputes. The costs of the scheme are generally borne by the public purse and by the industry, so the claimant normally has to contribute only a modest fee. Apart from the costs of the scheme, each party bears its own costs.
For more complex cases, a general arbitration scheme is available. That is based on the normal principles of arbitration—that each party bears its own costs during the proceedings, and that, in his findings, the arbitrator may ultimately rule that one party shall meet some or all of the costs of the other party. Similarly, where cases go to the Lands Tribunal, the tribunal has powers to award costs at its discretion.
I reiterate that I have considerable sympathy with the concerns that my right hon. Friend has expressed and, like him, I wish to see a system in place that will enable swift and fair compensation for those affected by development undertaken for the general good of the community. I cannot offer any commitments about how the Government will tackle that, but I can assure my right hon. Friend and those whom he represents that the Government are actively considering the ideas that he and the Country Landowners Association have put forward. Clearly, however, we must avoid rushing to replace a tried and tested system with one that might prove less satisfactory in the longer term.

Privatisation (Costs)

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I sought this debate largely because of a constituency interest. My constituency in central Lanarkshire has been particularly devastated by the impact of the restructuring of the steel industry. My personal assistant, Mr. Frank Roy, is a former shop steward from Ravenscraig steel plant, which is no more. I am conscious that my constituents worry that privatisation has been not only in their worst interests but perhaps in the worst interests of the whole United Kingdom.
I do not necessarily wish to make partisan points, and I do not intend to rehearse the arguments against privatisation. We know where the Government and the Opposition come from on the issue. We are anxious about the impact of privatisation on the utilities themselves and in a broader setting. I would like the Financial Secretary to outline the costs, both hidden and obvious, of privatisation over a period.
We have teased information out of the Government about the costs of privatisation. That has led to some concern about what the accounts of the Exchequer reveal about how much privatisation has actually cost the taxpayers of this country. The Earl of Stockton in another place referred to privatisation as selling off the family silver. The Earl, who was an alumnus of my university, made a witty analogy between privatisation and the great homes of the nation. He referred to selling off the paintings, the furniture and the family silver. In reflecting upon his remarks this morning, I admit to some concern about the fate of his family company, given the speculation about the future of Macmillan. But that is an aside.
It is obvious that the key beneficiaries of privatisation are institutions in the City. Those of us who have been involved in private sector flotations know the substantial fees that are totted up by City advisers. There is concern in the House and elsewhere that some advisers who have been involved in the privatisation process have acquired Tory grandees on their company boards shortly after the privatisations have taken place. The merchant banks, accountants, lawyers, public relations consultants, stockbrokers and technical consultants have an opportunity to put their noses in the privatisation trough.
Only last week, the Financial Secretary admitted that the Government have spent some £136 million advertising privatisation share issues in the past 10 years. Since 1985, advertising costs for the flotations—there have been about 18—have ranged from £1.1 million for the sell-off of Northern Ireland Electricity to the £21.4 million which was spent on the 1986 "Tell Sid" campaign to persuade the public to buy shares in British Gas. I wonder whether Sid will tell us what will happen to the disabled when we address the issue of competition in the gas industry.
The three-stage sell-off of British Telecom cost £35.6 million over eight years in advertising terms alone. That sum beggars belief. That money could have been better spent in the public sector, rather than lining the pockets of advertising agencies and their spin-off agencies.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for referring to Scotland, but it is obviously at the forefront of my mind. Some £5.3 million was spent advertising the sale of the Scottish electricity companies. That amounts to more than £2 for every adult in the country.
It is recognised that Opposition Members are very disturbed about the extent to which industries were undervalued in the first place. That undervaluation is also a cost of privatisation. The Government undervalued the assets, heavily hyped their sale through advertising the share issue, and in many cases wrote off debts of billions of pounds beforehand.
To give another Scottish example, at the same time as many Scots were enduring the shameful humiliation of poindings and warrant sales because they had incurred debts as a result of the poll tax—I know that the Financial Secretary is concerned about that issue—the state was writing off £1.5 billion in debt for the Scottish electricity companies.
A poinding or warrant sale is the most depressing, degrading and humiliating way of recovering small debts. A sheriff officer arrives at the house of an harassed family, who are usually in some distress because they cannot pay their debts. The sheriff officer, who is often assisted by the police, can enter that house and go through every item of the family's belongings—from the kitchen table and chairs to televisions and radios—and put an often derisory value on those items. That exercise is often undertaken for the recovery of debts of only £200 or £300. I have witnessed warrant sales—in fact, I spent much of this week trying to prevent one from being inflicted on one of my constituents.
I feel quite bitter when I see that the Government are prepared to write off quite substantial debts in order to make companies that are about to be privatised more attractive for a general share issue. I remind the Financial Secretary of the words of his colleague John Maples, that the rich get richer on the backs of the rest of us.
It is very difficult for me to explain to my constituents—indeed, I would not try to explain it to those who are enduring the humiliation of warrant sales—how that can happen. The only similarity between the way in which the Government write off the debts of companies which are about to be privatised and the sheriff officers is that they both have very flexible attitudes towards the true value of assets.
I accept that many individuals made quick killings from initial share offers when they sold their shares to the institutions which are the current shareholders. The broad base of share ownership in this country has narrowed considerably. Water industry shares were sold at £6.5 billion in 1989, and they are now valued at £12 billion. There have been £2 billion in dividends since 1990. Shareholders get the money and the opportunity to laugh all the way to the bank, but the taxpayers are suffering, and the nation as a whole is impoverished as a consequence.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member said that the broad base of shareholding has narrowed. Does she accept that there are now more shareholders than trade unionists, and that, as a result of privatisation, the number of individual shareholders has more than doubled?

Mrs. Liddell: That is a very quick political point to make. Yes, there are more shareholders than trade unionists, and undoubtedly some trade unionists hold shares. That is partly because the Government have been intent upon attacking trade unionists and reducing the number of people in employment in this country, thereby making them less eligible for membership of a trade union.
There has been dramatic restructuring within the privatised industries, with a consequent reduction in employment. House of Commons Library figures reveal that about 127,000 jobs gross have been lost in the privatised sector. I accept that every company, whether private or public, has to go through periods of restructuring, but that restructuring is taking place at a time when the labour market is under considerable pressure. It is also a time of rising unemployment.
What are the hidden costs of privatisation? Many companies restructure—often code for downstaffing—because it looks good in their annual reports. That makes it easier for a company chairman to laud a company's performance before his shareholders and to increase the share price. A number of privatised companies have employed senior executives as consultants. They are given a golden handshake, but return as consultants or redesign themselves as sole traders, sometimes in the form of consultancy companies.
I do not shed any tears for them, but for employers at a lower level who find themselves out in the cold. If they redefine themselves as sole traders, they are re-employed on temporary contracts with their former employers as members of a casualised work force. They do not enjoy the minimum employment protection that exists even under a Conservative Government.
There is an even less glamorous aspect of privatisation. Only last week, the Equal Opportunities Commission published its analysis of the impact of private contracting as a result of compulsory competitive tendering in the public sector, and the conclusions are horrifying in 1995.
That research showed that women in particular, members of the ethnic minorities and disabled people have suffered dramatically from CCT. Eighteen months ago, there was public outrage when auxiliary and domestic staff and porters at Glasgow Royal infirmary were re-employed by private contractors at lower hourly rates and with fewer holidays. Only a public outcry from the highest to the lowest in the community stopped that happening.
Less publicised cases arise daily. As a consequence, wages paid in the public sector—particularly to women—have fallen by as much as 25 per cent. Many women working in public sector cleaning and catering have to take on multiple jobs—often below the minimum part-time hourly rate, so they are not eligible for state benefits, including maternity allowance. They often have short-term contracts that make no provision for holidays or holiday pay. If they cannot work during school holidays, they have to claim social security benefits—which is a cost to them and to the nation.
Tomorrow, local government elections will be held in Scotland. Seeing the Press Gallery almost empty, I reflect on the halcyon days when there were reporters in the Press Gallery. When I was a Press Gallery reporter, a distinguished BBC reporter who, sadly, died last week reminded reporters every time they left the Press Gallery that Scotland is different. If only someone had reminded the BBC and "Panorama" of that last week, there might have been a different outcome to events in the courts.
If I may refer to the local government elections, there is a hare-brained race to reorganisation of Scotland local government, leading to more privatisations, particularly of essential services such as the education advisory service and catering in Strathclyde. That will produce further casualisation of the work force and additional concealed costs for the public and taxpayers.
The Government continue their reckless pursuit of privatisation, having learnt nothing from the costs incurred by early privatisations. Last week, my party's transport team published "The Runaway Train: The cost of rail privatisation", showing that the cost of privatization—based on Government figures and figures published in Hansard, would be in excess of revenue.
I seek a reassurance that the Government are not turning a blind eye to the costs of privatisation. Obtaining accurate information from them is like drawing teeth. We want to know the real costs in terms of unemployment and the cost to customers. Before the Financial Secretary reminds me that, under privatisation, some customers will have lower bills, I remind him that others will pay more. Fortunately, Labour managed to stop water privatisation in Scotland, but many people are paying increased water charges in England and Wales.
Will the Financial Secretary acknowledge that not everyone gains under privatisation? May we know the true cost of privatisation to the Exchequer and to society? May I have a reassurance—although I doubt that the Financial Secretary can provide one—that my constituents, who have suffered from steel privatisation and other privatisations, can look forward to a better future? I believe that they can only do so under a Labour Government. I do not expect that the Financial Secretary agrees.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): The last sentence is about the only one with which I do agree.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) for choosing this important subject for debate. She focused on the costs of privatisation. I hope that she agrees that, if one is to have a balanced perspective, one must consider not just the costs but the benefits. I hope, in a short speech, to redress the imbalance in the hon. Lady's speech.
A great deal of preparatory work must be done if one is to enjoy the receipts and other benefits of the Government's privatisation programme. Industries must be restructured and streamlined. Contracts must be put in place where none existed before. Potential shareholders must be informed by a prospectus of what they would be buying, and the general public must be kept informed. All that costs money and fees, but such preparatory work has produced massive benefits.
I was slightly surprised at the hon. Lady's speech, because the Leader of the Opposition has spent months touring the country to reform clause IV and telling the public that the state no longer needs to own massive, formerly nationalised industries. In 15 minutes, the hon. Lady, in a revisionist speech, cast doubt on Labour party policy on privatisation and nationalisation.

Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend say how much the taxpayer receives in revenue from the profits of privatised industries, compared with the amount of money that the taxpayer met in subsidies to British Steel, Rover, British Airways and British Coal when they were in the public sector?

Sir George Young: When we entered office in 1979, the nationalised industries were costing the state £50 million a week. The industries that we subsequently


privatised are now producing revenue of £50 million a week—a massive fiscal turnround, of real benefit to taxpayers.

Mrs. Liddell: As the Financial Secretary is explaining the great worth of privatisation, perhaps he will explain why the Government decided not to privatise the Post Office.

Sir George Young: A large part of the Post Office is already privatised. Most sub-post offices are already in private ownership. The hon. Lady may know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is reflecting on how best to proceed with the Post Office.
Privatisation works. The hon. Lady did not say that privatisation and public ownership did not work. Before I entered the House, and while the hon. Lady was working as a reporter in the Press Gallery, I was working in a nationalised industry. I can tell her that nationalisation jolly well did not work. There were enormous concealed costs in state ownership.

Mrs. Liddell: rose—

Sir George Young: The hon. Lady had 15 minutes to make her case, and in courtesy to her, as well as to the House, I must answer her points.
In the days of nationalisation, we had debates about losses, debts, high prices, poor investment decisions, shoddy service and the holder of the latest strike record. In other words, there were costs under nationalisation. There were costs for every householder and business in the land. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has reminded us, they were costs for taxpayers.
The hon. Lady may like to recall what the Leader of the Opposition said about privatisation. He asserted
it is barely an issue that prices will rise because of privatisation."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988, Vol. 143, c. 684.]
In fact, the cost of domestic electricity has fallen by 8 per cent., excluding value added tax, over the past two years. Under the Labour Government, electricity prices increased in cash terms by 2 per cent. every six weeks. There is a dramatic contrast between public and private ownership.
I do not blame those who worked in the nationalised industries, especially as I was one of them. It was the nature of state ownership, with its excessive centralisation and inevitable short-termism, that was the root of the problem. Privatisation has shown that it can rescue businesses and services from what was a rather depressing scenario.
The domestic consumer has seen dramatic improvements in standards. Privatisation has turned inward-looking businesses into successful ones often globally. I shall mention a few. The House will be interested to know that 45 countries throughout the world have benefited from the skills, knowledge and experience of British Gas since privatisation. Rover, which was once the basket case of the British car industry, is now exporting its Discovery model to Japan.
The hon. Lady mentioned the employees of former nationalised industries. Does she believe that those who now work for British Airways want to be taken back into public ownership? British Airways is now the world's

favourite airline. It carries more international passengers than any other carrier. It is a real success story. Back in 1979, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described British Airways as "a potential pantomime horse" of capitalism. How wrong he was. The hon. Lady talked about British Steel. In 1979, it was making losses of £1.7 billion. It is now an industry in profit.
The hon. Lady should reflect on the costs to the country's export position if the Government had adopted what I believe to be her rather short-term view of public ownership. We have heard something today about the wider cost of full public sector services. The hon. Lady mentioned local authorities. Compulsory competitive tendering and privatisation mean that homes and businesses can buy services at competitive prices instead of subsidising them through taxation. That has been of much greater importance to United Kingdom businesses and their customers that the hon. Lady realises.
I shall illustrate my argument by talking about telecommunications and energy supply, which are two key services to virtually every home and business in the country. Telecommunications account for about 2 per cent. of gross domestic product. Electricity and gas together account for a further 2 per cent. The services that they provide are crucial to the competitiveness of each and every business. If telecommunications and energy providers perform badly, other industries feel the pinch. If they are free to charge too much for too little, millions of individual customers pay over the odds for a second-rate service. It is they who suffer.
Privatisation has led to vastly improved investment levels and service standards. Before privatisation, it was the taxpayer who inevitably underwrote investment. After privatisation, companies facing competition and regulation had to shape up their act. The hon. Lady bandied a few figures about. Let us consider some more.
British Telecom has invested a massive £22 billion since privatisation. Mercury has invested £2.7 billion. Mobile phone companies have invested a further £2.6 billion. Investment by British Gas has tripled in real terms in the seven years after sale. The water companies have invested over £12 billion in the five years since privatisation, 75 per cent. more in real terms than in their last five years in the public sector.
Increased investment has clearly had an impact on quality. Everyone now has a real choice of telephone service. People no longer wait to be connected to a telephone service. British Gas now responds quickly to faults. In virtually all cases, supply is restored within 24 hours. No longer must busy customers wait in all day when they would rather be about their business. All utilities now offer timed appointments. Britain's water is now among the cleanest in Europe, despite being cheaper than water in most other European countries.
Let us consider what investing for quality has cost the consumer, and perhaps pause over some of the telling interventions of Opposition Members in previous debates. For example, we were told that 16 million British Gas customers could expect only one result—increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation. That was not a startling new Government announcement. It was a forecast made by a Labour Member. It was just a little bit out: since privatisation, the average household gas bill has fallen by 20 per cent. even after inflation. We were told that a minimum estimate of the cost of privatisation to the


consumer in terms of increases was 20 per cent. That was said by a Labour Member in the Opposition's haste to oppose electricity privatisation. Wrong again: privatisation has brought down the cost of electricity to the domestic consumer by 9 per cent. in the past two years, even after taking inflation into account.
If hon. Members want to make a phone call when they leave the House to go on a well-earned recess, I am happy to tell them that the three-minute local peak rate call now costs less in cash terms than it did on privatisation. They will find a phone box much more readily, and when they do, it will be working.
The House may recall the scaremongering of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). He said in 1983 that the public telephone box could be threatened by extinction. That was a far cry from reality. The number of BT call boxes has increased by over 50 per cent. to 127,000, and 96 per cent. of them work at any one time, compared with about 75 per cent. back in 1987.
It is tempting to tease the hon. Lady about her party's record in getting figures right. The serious point is that her attack on privatisation is narrow and misinformed. At the beginning of her speech, she talked about costs. On average, each privatisation has cost only 2.8 per cent. of the proceeds that have been raised. Those narrow figures belie the knock-on benefits to consumers of which I have spoken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South reminded me, privatised industries are contributing about £50 million a week to the Exchequer in taxes and dividends. That is surely relevant.
The criticisms that we have heard about the privatisation programme have ignored improvements in quality, reductions in price and improved service. They ignore the new export potential that privatisation has brought to the country. They ignore also the fact that privatisation has underpinned London's position as the premier centre for financial services and privatisation expertise, which is now being exported throughout the world.
Privatisation has brought solutions, ideas, innovation and investment. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government will continue down that road. We shall proceed with privatisation—the hon. Lady mentioned British Rail—and take forward the private finance initiative. We shall bring the private sector into areas previously thought to be the preserve of the public sector. We shall continue to apply principles of quality and service in the heart of government and to local services.
A great wave of reform has swept the public sector over the past 15 years. That has set the framework for UK excellence at home and abroad. The Government are proud of their record. We are not complacent, and the process will go forward.

Estate Duty

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I am most grateful to Madam Speaker for allowing me to raise this matter today. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for attending to respond on behalf of the Government. I make no apology for adding to his work, for I am about to talk about a glaring injustice in our tax system.
The advantage of Adjournment debates is that a Minister can be asked to consider an injustice. Where it is correctible, as this one is, he can correct it. We all know that Ministers are so busy—I sympathise with every busy Minister—that it is hard for them to find time to examine difficult cases in detail. An Adjournment debate causes them to do just that. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend has carefully considered the matter and will agree that I am highlighting a glaring injustice in our tax provisions.
Estate duty was abolished more than 20 years ago, but, amazingly, it lives on in a few areas. I shall not list them all. The only one with which I am concerned is the vexed question of taxation of reversionary interests. It is in that area that an appalling anomaly occurs, because of two facts: first, rates of estate duty in the past were very much higher than rates of inheritance tax today; and secondly, there has been appalling inflation over the past three or four decades. I am not in any way arguing that the law has been incorrectly applied in this case, because clearly it has not. The objection of my constituent, Mrs. Findlater, is not that the law has been incorrectly applied but that the law itself is completely without justice.
Fortunately, the Government are contemplating making changes to the law affecting inheritance tax. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a speech on Saturday in which he said:
I also hold dear the belief that people should be able to hand on security to their children, cascading wealth down the generations. Over the last decade we've doubled the threshold at which inheritance tax becomes payable. It's been difficult to go further in the last two or three difficult years. But I'm committed to doing so as soon as we can afford it.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said similar things on earlier occasions about wealth cascading down the generations. I very much agree with him.
The timing of my debate is opportune. I hope that if my right hon. Friend changes the law and rates for inheritance tax, he will solve my constituent's problems as well. I shall now explain the problem. It really is very simple.
In 1957, Mrs. Findlater's mother died. Mrs. Findlater inherited, under her mother's will, a reversionary interest in another estate, which was subject to a life interest but which did not expire until 1990, when the beneficiary who enjoyed the life interest died. In much simpler language, and putting it bluntly, although Mrs. Findlater inherited the money in 1957, she could not get her hands on it until 1990. Because she could not get the money when she inherited it, she sensibly opted—as any reasonable person would if they were allowed to under the law, and Mrs. Findlater was—to defer paying the tax that was due on it until she did get the money.
That event—getting the money—occurred 33 years later. An innocent observer might think that, with all the inflation that we have had in those 33 years, what Mrs. Findlater


would have paid, had she not exercised the option to defer, would not have been very much in today's money. So why is she so upset? Well, because the law is not like that. The law in this area is the proverbial ass. It operates in an outrageous, unjust and utterly perverse way. In 1957, the relevant part of the estate about which I am speaking was worth about £10,000. Because of other funds making up the whole estate, at that time the relevant part would have attracted duty of 12 per cent.—some £1,200. By 1990, that £10,000-odd estate had grown to £124,139. No one should think that that was because of skilful investment. It was because of inflation, and inflation is the responsibility of Government. Indeed, as we all know, it is caused by Government. That £124,139 has borne tax, not at 12 per cent. but at 50 per cent.—£62,069.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and every other hon. Member in the House is wincing. I certainly am. Tax at 12 per cent. in 1957 had risen to 50 per cent. in 1990. Furthermore, the capital transfer tax office also made a demand for interest—all within the law—of £3,404. What a business! I must point out that, in its generosity, the capital transfer office has been good enough to make a remission of part of that charge. I suppose that we should be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the high table.
There we see why such indignation has been caused to that family. The fund is valued on its present rather than its historic value, but tax is charged according to estate duty scales that were in force in 1957, under, I may add, a tax law that was abolished for normal purposes in 1975. The amount of tax taken, which would have been 12 per cent., was in fact 50 per cent. in 1990. As must be clear to any impartial observer, my constituent has been punitively taxed on an inflationary gain.
As I have mentioned, there are clear signs that the Government are thinking of relaxing further the impact of inheritance tax. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is able to do so in his autumn Budget, I very much hope that he will address the problem of Mrs. Findlater and others in a similar position. There cannot be many people in such a position, and it should be of little cost to the Exchequer to rectify the problem.
I must point out to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that, if the Government relax the impact of inheritance tax but fail to address the problems of Mrs. Findlater and people like her, the sense of injustice felt by such people will be deep and abiding. The equitable solution to the problem is to tax such a fund at its present value, by applying present rates as well, not at the historic rate, which leads to such manifest unfairness.
I look forward to the next Budget, confident that the timing of this debate must be right, for my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary must, now that the Finance Bill is nearly law, be about to consider matters such as inheritance tax for our right hon. and learned Friend's next Budget. I wish my right hon. Friend well. I invite him to see that justice is done and I look forward to seeing the promises of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put into effect. Mrs. Findlater, too, wants to see wealth cascading down the generations.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for

Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) on securing the debate. I know that he has taken a keen interest in Mrs. Findlater's case for some time. I pay tribute to the way in which he has pursued this case on behalf of one of his constituents; I read every letter in the file that was placed before me. I can understand the distress and indignation of Mrs. Findlater and her family, which my hon. Friend so eloquently conveyed to the House. In my reply, I shall deal with the general principles behind the liability to estate duty that Mrs. Findlater has had to face, and then touch on some of the other points that my hon. Friend made.
Estate duty was one of the forerunners of the present inheritance tax regime. It lasted from 1894 until 1975. The last Labour Government abolished estate duty, replacing it with capital transfer tax, which combined an estate tax with an immediate tax charged on lifetime gifts.
Since taking office in 1979, the Government have reformed the taxation of estates significantly, consistent with our stated objective of allowing individuals to pass on more of their wealth to the beneficiaries of their choice, free of the burden of taxation. We replaced capital transfer tax in 1986 with inheritance tax, abolishing the immediate charge on lifetime gifts in the process. Estate duty was a tax on property passing on death. It included the deceased's own assets, any trust property in which the deceased had an interest in possession—for example, a life interest—and gifts made shortly before death.
In some respects, the estate duty and inheritance tax regimes are similar, but there are some important differences, one of which involves the treatment of interests in expectancy. It may help if I briefly explain what that is. Essentially, it is the right to receive property or an interest in that property at some future date. It is most commonly encountered in settlements and will trusts. For example, a husband could provide by will that a capital sum be settled on his wife, so that she may enjoy the income from the settled fund for the rest of her life, and on her death the capital would pass to their son. In this example, while the wife lived, the son has an expectant interest in the capital.
Interests in expectancy are usually of some value, so they can be bought and sold in an open market like any other asset, and this does indeed occur. Under estate duty, it was considered appropriate that an interest in expectancy passing on a person's death should be taxable on the death.
I have already mentioned that the treatment of inheritance tax differs. Nowadays, we no longer generally tax an interest in expectancy in this way. We will usually do so only if the interest was purchased by the deceased. Since 1975, the way in which we tax settled property generally has changed, and we now believe that trusts are adequately taxed without having to include most interests in expectancy.
I will not detain the House by arguing the pros and cons of the estate duty regime. Suffice to say that at the time it was thought appropriate to levy tax on an interest in expectancy but, as I have said, that is generally not so now.
Under estate duty law, the executors or administrators of an estate had a choice concerning payment of duty on an interest in expectancy. They could either pay it straight away, with the duty on the rest of the estate or, alternatively, they could elect to postpone payment until the interest fell into possession.
If payment was postponed, for the purpose of determining the estate duty on the rest of the estate, a discounted or actuarial value of the interest at the date of death was adopted, and the estate duty on the interest itself was charged according to the value of the interest at the time when it fell into possession, taking into account the value of the rest of the estate as previously ascertained.
The facility for deferment of duty on interests in expectancy essentially recognised the relatively illiquid nature of the asset, as in the example described by my hon. Friend. There were other cases where payment could be postponed for similar reasons. Deferment was also available for woodlands, recognising the long-term nature of forestry enterprises, and heritage quality chattels included in an estate were exempted from duty conditional on appropriate undertakings being given concerning the retention and preservation of the chattels. That recognised the importance of preserving our national heritage.
Reverting to interests in expectancy, the executors had to elect, on delivery of their account of the estate to the Inland Revenue, whether to pay estate duty on the interest at once or, instead, when the interest fell into possession. If they elected to pay at once, duty was assessed on the market value at the date of death of the right to receive the capital sum at a future date.
If they elected to defer payment until the estate receives the interest, estate duty is payable on the open market value at that time of the actual assets accruing to the estate. The rate of duty is ascertained, as my hon. Friend explained, by the aggregation of such value with the value of the rest of the estate as previously ascertained. If, as usually happens, the value of the accruing assets is greater than the value of the expectant interest at the date of death, it bears a higher rate of duty than the rest of the estate—again, as in the example given by my hon. Friend. That is because estate duty had progressive rates, dependent on the size of the estate, rather than a single rate as we now have under inheritance tax.
The option on payment of duty on an interest in expectancy is not considered to have been exercised until the grant of representation has been obtained. Until then the election can be made even though the person with the prior interest may have died in the meantime. Moreover, in practice, the option is not treated as finally exercised until the accountable person pays what purports to be, and is accepted as, full duty in respect of the rest of the estate.
Having explained the background to the claim to estate duty, I come to the particular case that my hon. Friend has raised today.
Mrs. Findlater's uncle died in 1952 and by will left his residuary estate on trust to his widow for life, or until remarriage, and on her death the capital was to be divided between his two brothers absolutely. The father of Mrs. Findlater was one of the brothers. He also died in 1952 and left his entire estate, including the interest under the will trust, to his widow. She assigned that interest in 1953 to her daughter, Mrs. Findlater, and died in 1957. Since the gift of the interest in expectancy was made within five years of her death, it became liable to estate duty on her death.
As the executrix of her mother's estate, and the person accountable for the estate duty on the interest in expectancy, it was Mrs. Findlater who had the option of either paying the duty on the interest in 1957, with the

interest being valued at that time, or when the interest fell into possession, and valued at that later time. In the event, no duty was paid on the interest in expectancy in 1957, as the second option—to defer payment—was exercised. I understand that Mrs. Findlater was professionally advised.
The life tenant lived on for another 23 years. As my hon. Friend said, she died in 1990, which event triggered the estate duty liability that had been deferred since 1957. The will trust fund created by Mrs. Findlater's uncle had, not surprisingly, increased in value significantly over those 23 years, so the value of the interest gifted to Mrs. Findlater was worth a lot more now than the expectant interest would have been in 1957.
The enhanced value of the interest and the estate duty rate structure in force in 1957 meant, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the deferred charge was much higher than the original charge on death would have been. That is, I think, the crux of the matter raised by my hon. Friend. Mrs. Findlater, and indeed my hon. Friend, are asking whether it is right that an asset which would have been charged at a relatively low rate—6 per cent—in expectancy, in fact ends up being charged at nearly eight times that rate—50 per cent—in possession. That is the nub of the dilemma that my hon. Friend has put before the House.
I have to say to my hon. Friend that, whatever one now thinks of the rates of duty which existed in 1957, Mrs. Findlater exercised the option to defer the duty with the benefit of professional advice, and in the full knowledge that duty at the appropriate rate would have to be paid at a later date. That is, if I may say so, the chance that one takes by deferring a tax liability for an undetermined period free of interest.
I believe that Mrs. Findlater does not dispute the legal basis of the claim for estate duty, and nor does my hon. Friend. But they believe that there is a moral basis for reducing the charge. I have to say that to do so would be unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers in identical circumstance whose interests have already fallen into possession. It must be right that all those who deferred their liability in the full knowledge of the consequences should be treated in the same way.
My hon. Friend asks whether it was right that such a large amount of estate duty should now be levied. He put the proposition to the House that we should now extinguish those outstanding claims. Alternatively, he may have in mind some form of indexation relief, or a lower scale of rates of duty, to reflect the lower tax rates applying to deaths that occur today.
My hon. Friend asked us to reflect on his proposition, but one must put one or two counter arguments. During the period that we are discussing, no account of inflation was taken for any direct taxes, but this was before the days of hyper-inflation under the 1970s Labour Government.
Indexation for capital gains tax purposes was introduced by the Government in 1982, by which time estate duty had already been abolished for more than seven years. It was therefore unnecessary to consider indexation for estate duty purposes, and I think that the same applies now.

Sir Lennox-Boyd: The portion of the estate fell into possession in 1990—there was inflation throughout.


If there is to be indexation for capital gains tax from 1982, why cannot people in those situations be helped too? It is monstrously unjust.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has to reflect on whether he would extend the same treatment for which he is asking on behalf of his constituent to everybody who in 1957 deferred payment, subsequently paid duty and is, in effect, in exactly the same position as his constituent. If he is to advance the case for his constituent, in fairness he must offer that same retrospective opportunity to everybody who, under estate duty, was offered the same decision that Mrs. Findlater was offered. There are severe consequences if one is to do that. If one does not do that it would be wholly unfair on those estates where a duty has already been paid with or without the deferment option. It would also be unusual if we were now to try to revise tax legislation which had been repealed decades ago.
Abandoning the remaining deferred claims for estate duty on expectant interests, as advocated by my hon. Friend, would also lead to pressure for, and an expectation of, similar concessions in relation to the other deferred estate duty charges that I mentioned earlier, in particular those for heritage property.
In any event, my hon. Friend is well aware of the well-established conventions regarding retrospective reliefs. Even if some form of concession applying solely to interest in expectancy were possible, it would not be possible to apply it equitably in accordance with the spirit of the taxpayers charter.
I understand from my hon. Friend's body language that my remarks have not been wholly welcome, but I hope that they have helped him to understand the basis for the

estate duty charge and persuaded him that, in the case of his constituent, the charge was consistent with both the relevant law and the treatment of other taxpayers.
At the end of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned inheritance tax. In recent years the Government's aim has indeed been to reduce the burden of taxation, thus allowing our citizens to pass more of their wealth to their chosen beneficiaries and simplifying the tax system. Since the introduction of inheritance tax in 1986 the Government have doubled the threshold in real terms: at £154,000 for 1995–96, it is more than twice the average price of a house in the United Kingdom. We have also abolished the immediate charge on lifetime gifts, and effectively exempted family trading businesses and farms from inheritance tax.
I am pleased to say that, as a result of that and other improvements that we have made, fewer than one in 30 of all estates now pay any inheritance tax. The vast majority of people can leave their homes, savings and other possessions to their children, or other beneficiaries of their choice, without having to worry about those inheritances being taxed.
We stand by our commitment—of which my hon. Friend reminded us—to reduce the burden of inheritance tax still further. We are, of course, mindful of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the weekend, and we shall seek in future to make such improvements as are consistent with the prudent management of the economy.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Crown Post Offices

Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many letters his Department has had, including those forwarded by hon. Members, in favour of transferring Crown post offices to agency status, and how many opposing this change; and if he will make a statement. [16434]

The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Since Post Office Counters Ltd. started its Crown post office conversion programme in 1989, my Department has received a wide range of correspondence commenting on the programme, most commonly on proposals for individual offices. However, summary records of the numbers of letters received and the views expressed in them are not maintained.

Mrs. Roche: I am interested to hear the Minister's reply. I hope that he will listen to the more than 3,000 people in my constituency who have written to me protesting about the change in Muswell Hill post office from a Crown post office to an agency one. I hope that he will take into account that people in my constituency do not want their post office, which they very much value, located in a butcher's shop or a greengrocer's, which are currently among the proposals. I hope that he will take that into account and instruct the Post Office accordingly. If the Post Office proceeds with that proposal, in the words of one of my constituents who formerly voted for the Conservatives, it will lose the support of all those who voted Tory at the last election.

Mr. Eggar: I know that the hon. Lady has had a chance to discuss the matter with the Post Office as part of the consultation. It is, of course, a matter for the Post Office. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Post Office is aware of her strong views. I understand that it has been in correspondence with her in addition to the meeting and that it is looking at possible sites for an agency office.

Mr. Fabricant: Are not many of the people who are concerned that some of the best post offices may become non-Crown post offices in fact referring to sub-post offices which are not Crown post offices, and does not some of the best service come from the sub-post offices, which are already in the private sector?

Mr. Eggar: The sub-post offices are extremely efficient and highly regarded by almost all their customers and are an absolutely critical part of the post office network. When surveys have been done after conversions to the private sector, a very high level of customer satisfaction has been revealed.

Privatisation

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what countries have sought his Department's advice on the privatisation of nationalised industries. [16435]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My Department has had discussions on the

privatisation of nationalised industries with a wide range of countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia the middle east and the far east.

Mr. Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When he gives advice to those countries, does he point out that the privatised nationalised industries have increased productivity and share ownership on the shop floor as well as throughout our nation and have made a substantial contribution to the Exchequer with millions of pounds of corporation tax as well as to the balance of payments with the export of technology and expertise? With the abolition of clause IV, are not the Opposition yet again following where we have led for many years?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The world is interested in the programme that Britain has pioneered in privatising the nationalised industries. The nationalised industries were costing the taxpayer £50 million per week. They are now contributing £50 million a week in positive cash flow to the Exchequer from taxes on their profits. That is a remarkable achievement. It is therefore no surprise that so many countries around the world are looking at those examples and copying exactly what we have done.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people from abroad who are making inquiries about the privatised industries in Britain that when he privatised British Coal he sacked 31,000 miners, closed 31 pits and then sold off the English part of the industry to Mr. R. J. Budge, whose financial base is very shaky? Mr. Budge put in a bid of £900 million; then somehow or other the right hon. Gentleman's Department reduced the tender by £100 million. If that was not a fiddle, I do not know what is.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell those people from abroad that in respect of all the other industries that have been privatised, the only beneficiaries have been the water board chiefs and the other utility chairmen who have made a small fortune while thousands of people have been chucked on the scrap heap?

Mr. Heseltine: You might wonder, Madam Speaker, whether repealing clause IV has made any difference.

Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many countries throughout the world the important thing is cash flow? Does not the sale of nationalised industries, together with the fact that there will be no further outgoings of taxpayers' money—plus the income referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)—show that the cash flow of those countries will greatly benefit from the sale of nationalised bodies to the private sector?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why so many Governments are looking to the process of privatisation to strengthen their economic base. The fact is that industries and companies which 15 years ago were soggy, producer-dominated, trade-union-dominated monopolies are now world-class companies winning for Britain in the four corners of the world.

Dr. John Cunningham: Has the right hon. Gentleman warned those inquirers about how many billions of pounds consumers of water and electricity have been charged as a result of privatisation? Has he warned them, for example, that if North West Water shared its profits


50–50 between consumers and shareholders, it could reduce every consumer's bill by £50 a year? Has he warned them about the rip-offs on share options and salary increases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly drew attention?
Has the right hon. Gentleman, as a golden shareholder in the National Grid Company, given any warning to National Grid about its tax avoidance schemes in Dublin and the Channel islands which are ripping off the taxpayer? Consumers and taxpayers are being ripped off by privatisation. How much has the taxpayer lost as a result of offshore tax dodges by National Grid, and does the right hon. Gentleman defend that?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has shown us exactly the sort of support that British privatised companies would get from a Labour Government. While my ministerial colleagues and I spend our time travelling the world helping to sell British expertise and products produced by the British privatised industries, all that the Opposition can do is find nit-picking complaints in the hope of discrediting one of the most successful changes in industrial ownership in this country's history.

Takeover Bids

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy concerning possible takeover bids for the privatised utilities. [16436]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Takeover bids for the privatised utilities are subject to normal merger control procedures. However, special arrangements apply to mergers between water companies.

Mr. Williams: Now that the Government's golden shares have been lifted, the privatised utilities will become very juicy targets for a plethora of takeover bids. Why is the Government's regulatory framework so hopelessly weak as to allow massive profits and a host of boardroom excesses? What hope is there for effective regulation if a privatised utility is taken over by a large conglomerate?

Mr. Evans: As I have said previously when dealing with questions about the Trafalgar House and Northern Electric issue, the powers of the regulator remain, whether or not there is a takeover. I note that there is some argument in the press to the effect that the whole business of the bid for Northern Electric was a factor which led the regulator to reopen the question of prices. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the last Labour Government the price of electricity went up by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under the present Government, the price of electricity has fallen. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that our water companies' average price is the lowest in Europe and that their investment is the highest in Europe? Surely what is important is the service to the customer, not who owns the individual company.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. The water companies' record not only in the matters to which he has drawn attention, but in terms of investment, has been spectacular and contrasts markedly with investment when they were in the public sector under the Labour

Government. Some £12 billion has been invested in the water infrastructure. It would be helpful if Labour Members paid due credit to that.

Mr. Wigley: What powers will the Government use to prevent a takeover in the event of an offer being made for a company such as Welsh Water? That company has a large retained profits level, which only this week has come under criticism from Ofwat in Wales. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will intervene to ensure that no such takeover took place?

Mr. Evans: I should point out two factors to the hon. Gentleman. Not only has significant investment taken place in the water industry in Wales, but, as the hon. Gentleman in particular should be aware, Welsh Water is slightly distinct from other water companies in that the 15 per cent. share which applies in relation to the special shares of other water companies is retained by Welsh Water and can be changed only by a 75 per cent. vote of shareholders. In the circumstances, that should be of some solace to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. O'Neill: Can the Minister confirm the rumours that are circulating about a change of ownership Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear? Has the Government's policy on that matter changed? If so, will he ensure that, before any sales are made, an announcement is made to the House?

Mr. Evans: I am not sure how that question fits in with the general line of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). As so many stories from so many different directions have been produced so often by Opposition Members, I do not propose to engage in rumour-mongering with Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.

Manufacturing Base

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to regenerate Britain's manufacturing base. [16437]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The latest figures show manufacturing output up 4.3 per cent., productivity up 4.6 per cent. and exports up 14 per cent. on a year earlier, The Government's policies to help manufacturing and other businesses to win are set out in last year's "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" White Paper. We will publish a second White Paper containing further initiatives soon.

Mr. Mackinlay: We have all those "ups", but what are they up on? Is it not a fact that the country's manufacturing has not increased substantially for 20 years? How can the Government claim to take pride in the nation when they have presided over a haemorrhaging of our manufacturing base? Why are their friends—employer and industry representatives and the banks—pointing to the country's great skills shortage? Are not the Government selling the country short in all sectors, especially manufacturing?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman shows all the dangers of coming to the House with a rigidly prepared supplementary question. Three years ago, in the middle of the recession, his comments might have had some validity, but I remind him of my answer—manufacturing


up, exports up on last year, productivity up, investment up. The only thing that is down is unemployment. It is all good news.

Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the export-led recovery is becoming apparent even to a few of the more thoughtful Opposition Members? Will not that awareness be assisted by the recent £1 billion export order won by Lucas Industries in my constituency?

Mr. Page: I can but agree with my hon. Friend. The growth that we are seeing in the United Kingdom can only be regarded as miraculous. For the first time, we have stability in world trade and we have arrested a decline which has been going on for decades. The sort of order to which my hon. Friend referred is good news.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that, in terms of gross domestic product, our manufacturing base is well below that of France and Germany and is still not recovering at the right speed? Should not there be more co-ordination between the Exchequer and the Department of Employment? Is it not strange that, while the Department of Trade and Industry is trying to do one thing, the Department of Employment is cutting the enterprise allowance scheme and the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to believe that 35 per cent. of people in this country work for small and medium-sized firms which need finance and help?

Mr. Page: There is a philosophical divide between our two parties. We do not believe in such centralised plans. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the success of the National Enterprise Board set up by Labour to try to help British industry: it cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. I must also point out that the White Paper entitled "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" is the most positive way to help British industry take forward a wide range of best practice benchmarks and develop its export potential.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British silverware industry is rightly renowned throughout the world for the quality of its work and that that quality is synonymous with the British hallmark? May I congratulate him and his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on their robust and successful defence of the British hallmark last week in Brussels against determined attempts by the Germans and Italians to consign it to the dustbin of history?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend's position has always been very clear and I thank him on behalf of the Department for his robust support in producing such a successful result.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Grocott: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current deficit in the balance of trade for manufactured goods. [16438]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): In 1994, United Kingdom exports rose to all-time highs, reducing the trade deficit in manufactures by £500 million to £7.5 billion.

Mr. Grocott: I am not sure whether the Minister is proud of that answer, but will he take this opportunity to remind the House of some salutary economic statistics? In the second quarter of 1979, under Labour, there was a

surplus in manufacturing trade of £1 billion, whereas in the fourth quarter of 1994, under the Conservatives, there was a deficit of £2 billion. Are not those figures a reflection of the vandalism perpetrated on our manufacturing base, especially in my region, the west midlands? Will the Minister in a spirit of humility initiate urgent talks with those who were Ministers in the Labour Government to discover how Labour succeeded with manufacturing trade where the Tories have failed?

Mr. Needham: May I, in all humility, spell out to the hon. Gentleman the record of his party? I refer not to the second quarter of 1979 but to the fact that between 1974 and 1979 manufacturing output went down by 3 per cent. Between 1979 and 1994, manufacturing output went up by 9.5 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, manufacturing exports went up by 11 per cent., and between 1979 and 1994 they went up by 80 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, manufacturing productivity went up by 5.5 per cent. whereas between 1979 and 1994 it went up by 73.5 per cent. I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking such a helpful planted question.

Mr. Brooke: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the shift from the third world to the first world in the direction of exports between 1979 and today? Does not that expansion into high-tech exports bode extremely well for the future?

Mr. Needham: In 1979, it appeared that British industry was in long-term, irreversible decline, helped by the Labour party. Since 1985, the share of Britain's trade has stabilised and is now, if anything, going up. That is an enormous credit to our private sector, which has been set free by the Conservative Government and is now competing throughout the length and breadth of the world at the most competitive edges of technology.

Mr. Hardy: After 15 years of failure, we need not merely a temporary miracle, but a sustained one. Is there any prospect of that being maintained by a Government who, in the case of the steel industry, have deliberately allowed unfair competition to go unchallenged and have created a situation in which unfair competitors in Europe will take much more advantage of their protection when the going gets a bit more difficult, as it is bound to do if this Government stay in office much longer?

Mr. Needham: We need no lectures from the Opposition about looking after our industries in Europe. We need no lectures from a party which knows little about industry and would succumb to the first blow that it received from Europe. The hon. Gentleman referred to British Steel. In 1979, nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million per week. Those now privatised industries currently contribute £50 million per week to the Exchequer. That is a miracle which even the Opposition could not reverse.

European Navigation Satellite System

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport about ensuring United Kingdom industrial involvement in any future European global navigation satellite system; and if he will make a statement. [16439]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): My noble Friend Viscount Goschen, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, and I have agreed a common approach to the European global navigation satellite system programme. Our Departments are together contributing some £5.2 million which, added to contributions from UK industry, will provide an effective basis for UK involvement in the programme.

Mrs. Gillan: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his welcome announcement of that £5.2 million funding, which will support our UK industry in the new area of navigation by satellite? I do not want to sound ungrateful when the new funding has just been announced and I know that the plans from the European Space Agency have only just been forthcoming, but could my hon. Friend give me and the UK industry an assurance that there will be funding in the medium term to build on this excellent up-front funding?

Mr. Taylor: It is always a pleasure to be chivvied by my hon. Friend, especially in space—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which space?"] We seem to be getting into holiday mood, for which I blame myself. The importance of the global navigation system and the ARTES 9 programme is that they are likely to lead in the long term to controlling the movements of all civil aircraft, the movement of ships and, ultimately, the monitoring of road transport. It is therefore essential that British industry should play a full part. We have put up money which British industry is more than matching. I am in negotiations with the European Space Agency to ensure that we can accept the whole of the amount that British industry is putting up. It is difficult for me at the moment to forecast future public expenditure survey rounds, but my noble Friend Viscount Goschen and I are looking closely to see what more we might do in this programme.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Minister agree that with this navigation system and all other areas of space involvement, if we do not actively involve ourselves European-wide, give the encouragement that is necessary to the industry and assist in restructuring the industry so that it can face the challenges from the United States, we shall be pushed out of this area altogether? Does the Minister raise these issues when he is talking about trade with people from the United States who are constantly telling us about their record on free trade when indirect subsidies from the American Government are being poured into their space and aerospace industries, to our detriment?

Mr. Taylor: I am well aware of the pricing policy which can occur in some American companies and I have alerted my European colleagues to it. We are busily restructuring the industry. One of our largest companies in the space sector, Matra Marconi Space, is now a 50–50 joint venture with the French. There is a new arrangement between Matra Marconi Space and Alcatel for a new series of the Eutel satellite programmes. We are well placed to win competitive bids. My big problem at the moment is to persuade the European Space Agency to let contracts competitively rather than on the basis of Buggin's turn or juste retour. I will raise that point at the ESA ministerial conference later this year.

Cable Communications

Mr. Butler: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has had with the Cable Communications Association to discuss projects in schools, hospitals or other community-based institutions. [16440]

Mr. Ian Taylor: I often meet and correspond with the Cable Communications Association. I have also had positive discussions with individual cable companies about connections to community-based institutions within their franchises.

Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that ever since the first modern computer, the Colossus, was constructed at Bletchley Park, which is now part of Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes has led the way in information technology of all sorts? Is he also aware that the excellent schools and colleges and both universities make great use of the present facilities? Can my hon. Friend confirm that schools—not just those in Milton Keynes, but those elsewhere so that they can catch up with us—will be able to connect into the cable systems and take full advantage of them so that our children are well equipped for the future?

Mr. Taylor: I had the great pleasure of being in my hon. Friend's constituency in Milton Keynes not long ago during Science, Engineering and Technology Week. I pay tribute to all that is being done within that hive of activity, particularly in high technology. The Cable Communications Association has undertaken to ensure that all schools in the areas for which it has franchises will be connected. It is going much further by developing a series of classrooms without walls programmes to ensure that multimedia techniques are available for children in this country. British Telecom is also doing an enormous amount for schools with its campus series. We are making rapid progress. Last week, the Department and industry announced the schools on-line project.

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Hutton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about future prospects for the shipbuilding industry. [16441]

Mr. Eggar: I welcome the steps that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry has been taking to improve its competitiveness in the face of very challenging market conditions.

Mr. Hutton: Is not the arrival into the United Kingdom this week of the new P and O cruise liner Oriana yet another example of the decline of Britain's historic shipbuilding industry? Is the Minister aware that that will be felt particularly strongly in my constituency, where the previous Oriana vessel was constructed in the late 1950s? Why have the British Government not shown the same level of patriotism and support for our shipbuilding industry as other foreign Governments in the European Union have shown for theirs? Is that not a further example of the decline in the British industrial base caused by the Government's negligence?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman seems unaware that P and O asked all three British yards to bid for the building of the vessel and all three declined to do so for their own


commercial reasons. A significant number of firms supplied equipment for the Oriana and much of the outfitting work was done by United Kingdom firms.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister endorse the efforts being made by Harland and Wolff to diversify its product range and to develop further its international competitive position by seeking to establish co-operative agreements with overseas yards such as Kawasaki and Daewoo? Does he agree that that is one of the ways in which all British yards can help to secure their future?

Mr. Eggar: As I believe the hon. Gentleman is aware, I paid a visit to Harland and Wolff and I shall shortly meet again its chief executive, Mr. Per Nielson. The yard is making strenuous efforts to diversify. I have set up a group among the oil companies to look at the possibility of producing floating production vessels at the Harland and Wolff yard and other yards in the United Kingdom. The initial results of that study are encouraging. Ultimately, Harland and Wolff must be able to compete effectively with other yards, both in Europe and elsewhere.

Export Promotion

Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export promoters have been seconded to his Department from the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [16442]

Mr. Needham: Last July, the Department achieved its aim of recruiting 100 export promoters—high-calibre senior managers with export expertise, on secondment from the private sector, who have become a major success in helping Britain to win business overseas.

Mr. Spring: I salute the Department of Trade and Industry's initiative. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that excellent marriage between the public and private sectors is contributing greatly to the staggering success of British exports, notably to Latin America, the Indian sub-continent and the Pacific Rim, with all the job creation opportunities which flow from that to Britain?

Mr. Needham: In agreeing with my hon. Friend, and without wanting to be invidious with regard to naming names, because all the export promoters have done a remarkable job, may I say that one promoter, Linda Boize, is working on an order for Thailand worth £360 million. The Thai Government have told us that that project could not be carried out anywhere but in Britain. It is being carried out as a result of the work of Linda Boize and her colleagues.

Mr. Harvey: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that there have been no exports or arrangements for the sale of electro-shock equipment involving any British companies since 1984?

Mr. Needham: The answer is no. That has nothing whatsoever to do with export promoters. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know how export promoters can help companies in his constituency, he might like to ask questions about the subject in hand.

Mr. Enright: Despite the admitted success of the people we have sent out, will the Minister explain why, in the 12 years after 1979, this country lagged behind all the G7 countries and all the European Union countries,

apart from Denmark, our beloved Greece and even Spain, with regard to the rise in exports? That was the case despite North sea oil and the gift that it provided.

Mr. Needham: I have bandied statistics with the hon. Gentleman and I was grateful for his recent work in Austria. However, we are lagging behind no one. Since 1981, our exports have increased faster than those in Germany, Japan and the United States. That is not a bad record. As I told the hon. Gentleman—he clearly did not hear this last time—our share of world trade has stabilised since the mid-1980s and, if anything, it is increasing. Under the Labour Government and previous Governments, it had suffered 100 years of inexorable decline. The change has come because of the policies followed by this Government.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the very considerable increase in our exports to Latin America which coincided with the appointment of the new export promoters, notably covering Colombia and Brazil? Can we hope for a further increase in the number of those excellent people, combining private sector skills with those of the outstanding diplomats in our embassies and commercial missions over there to increase British exports yet further?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend has a great knowledge of that part of the world and he has helped us as a result of that knowledge. He is perfectly right to say that we have eight export promoters for Latin America who are working as a team and doing an enormous amount through the links to Latin America campaign, which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will make use of in their constituencies, to show the opportunities that exist in Latin America for British business. I am convinced that the export promoter initiative will be a crucial ingredient in restoring the level of trade which this country used to enjoy in Latin America and which, since the 1920s, unfortunately has been declining, although it now seems to be on the way up again.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Berry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the change between 1979 and 1993 in the proportion of gross domestic product invested in manufacturing industry in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) Japan. [16444]

Mr. Needham: The latest figures show that the United Kingdom invested 2.2 per cent. of gross domestic product in manufacturing industry in 1992 and 3.1 per cent. in 1979. Comparable figures, for which the hon. Gentleman asked, for Japan and Germany are not available, not least because Germany did not exist in 1979.

Mr. Berry: Does the Minister consider that the decline in the share of GDP invested in manufacturing industry over that period might explain why, under this Conservative Government, Britain has had the worst growth record and the highest levels of unemployment since the war? Does the Minister consider that it might also explain why Britain has had the worst economic performance of any of our major industrial competitors? Does he not also consider that it suggests that quoting statistics on economic performance over the past 12 months might be seriously misleading?

Mr. Needham: It is always a privilege to have another lecture from a lecturer among Opposition Members, who, as usual, know nothing about industry. As the hon. Gentleman asked about Germany, I can respond only about western Germany. Since 1979, manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom has risen nearly two and a half times as much as in western Germany. Since 1979, our exports have risen faster than in Germany.
It is nonsense to claim that this country's economy is not competing effectively with the rest of the world. When the hon. Gentleman is not lecturing, why does he think that we have managed to attract 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe while Germany has managed to attract only 17 per cent? Why does he think that the same applies to investment from the United States, in respect of which Germany has attracted investment of only 9 per cent? The facts speak for themselves. The hon. Gentleman should be proud of the fact that, in Bristol, he represents a city which, under this Government, is increasing its share of world trade faster and faster.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that often it is not so much the quantity as the quality of manufacturing investment that is important? Is it not also important to remember that manufacturing investment statistics do not include items such as research and development in pharmaceuticals? Do not British pharmaceutical companies, whether owned by overseas companies or by United Kingdom companies, lead those of Japan and Germany?

Mr. Needham: Of course my hon. Friend is right, and he is also right to stress the importance of the quality of manufacturing investment. In the last days of the Labour Government, when billions of pounds were used to subsidise nationalised industries, much of that money appeared in the figures as if it were manufacturing investment, although it did nothing for exports, for productivity or for competitiveness. Most of what it was subsidising had to be closed down, because it had been invested in the wrong products.

Mr. Bell: Everyone, both in the House and in the country, knows that last year when the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), now Secretary of State for National Heritage, talked about high dividends and low investment, he was promptly denounced by Lord Hanson, who contributed £120,000 to the Conservative party and then sent a letter to the Prime Minister denouncing the right hon. Gentleman. When it comes to high dividends and low investment, we know full well where the heart of the Tory party is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question?"] The question is: in heaven's name, who runs the Department of Trade and Industry when it comes to investment? Is it the President of the Board of Trade or is it Lord Hanson?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman talks about investment regardless of the quality of that investment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred—

Mr. Bell: I asked about Lord Hanson.

Mr. Needham: I am talking not about Lord Hanson but about the question, which concerned investment. The hon. Gentleman, who is more sensible than most

Opposition Members about such matters, will know that if manufacturing productivity has increased two and a half times faster in the United Kingdom than in Germany, that has to reflect the quality and importance of British investment over that period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That is the answer.

Mr. Sykes: As everybody who works in the private sector relies on the competitiveness of his company not only in Europe but elsewhere abroad, will my hon. Friend tell Opposition Members and the rest of the world what effect the social chapter and the minimum wage would have on manufacturing investment in this country?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about that subject and has been involved in business all his life, so he knows perfectly well that the social chapter would impose a massive additional burden on industry, because it would reduce support through arrangements such as family credit. The consequences for British competitiveness and profitability would be dire indeed. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows that perfectly well, but he does not know what to do about it.

Post Office

Ms Hoey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has had with the Post Office to discuss its future. [16445]

Mr. Heseltine: I most recently met the chairman and chief executive of the Post Office on 2 March.

Ms Hoey: As the Secretary of State has met the representatives of the Post Office, and does so regularly, when will he give the House and the country some idea of his vision for its future? Is he not aware that the Post Office desperately wants to be given commercial freedom within the public sector? There is almost united support for that idea in the country, and there would be support in the House, too, if legislation were introduced. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not make the simple decision to give the Post Office the opportunity to operate commercially within the public sector?

Mr. Heseltine: Because it is not possible to have commercial disciplines in the public sector.

Mr. Jenkin: May I inform my right hon. Friend that when I ironically congratulated the leader of one of the Post Office unions in my constituency on the success of the anti-privatisation campaign, he confessed to me that he rather regretted having won that victory? Can we cease to tie our hands behind our backs in expounding the virtues of a privatised Royal Mail, and may we have an assurance that when we win the general election, at the top of our agenda will be a plan to set the Royal Mail free so that it can expand its markets throughout the world?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point. No one would be happier than I to see Royal Mail join the large number of other privatised industries that are winning battles for Britain across the world.

Business Links

Mr. Mudie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the business links scheme is on target operationally and financially; and if he will make a statement. [16446]

Mr. Heseltine: I have stated on a number of occasions that the programme is well on course to reach its target for a national network in England of around 200 business links by the end of 1995. In addition to receiving a contribution to start-up costs, business links have been assured of on-going funding from my Department for the delivery of counselling and business support services. They are also financed by partner contributions and charges for services.

Mr. Mudie: The House will have noted the President's answer on the financial side, but will he concede that the success of that well-intentioned venture has been jeopardised by a series of blunders which have been extensively catalogued in an internal audit report? I see that the President smiles at that remark. As the internal audit report shows that taxpayers' money will go in at greater levels and for longer periods, does he not think that the report should be published, or is it a case of spending taxpayers' money without explanation or apology?

Mr. Heseltine: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman should respect the rights of Ministers to conduct internal investigations into projects which they are establishing. That is exactly what we have done. I do not think that it adds to the confidence in the regimes that we are establishing if reports are leaked before time and if misjudgments are then paraded in newspaper headlines.
The programme enjoyed all-party support, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to this important innovation. The business links machine is capable of delivering the most sophisticated range of support for small and medium companies that this country has ever seen. That machine—which will amount to some 200 outlets—will be in place by the end of the year.

Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 27 January I opened the business links office in Market Harborough? The taxpayer is already getting good value for money because many of the small and medium businesses that trade around Market Harborough have made good use of that office for their benefit and for that of their employees and the British economy.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that we raised a glass of champagne to him on the day that he opened the business links office.

Dr. John Cunningham: The President should be a bit more candid about his internal audit document which comments on the progress of the business links programme. The document—a copy of which I have here from his Department—does not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In the document, his own civil servants say:
The medium and long term viability of established business links is uncertain".
It also says:
We found that the financial appraisal of BL business plans has in general not been sufficiently rigorous".
It goes on to say:
The Department was exposed to financial risk and potential embarrassment".

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but I am sure that he realises that we do not allow quotes at Question Time. I think that he has forgotten that fact.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the President confirm that the document says that payments made under the scheme before September 1994 were ultra vires? We believe that that is the case. Why, in his rush to proceed, has the President taken what was a very good Labour party idea—for which, as he said, there was all-party support—and put it in such jeopardy?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall try to explain to the House what the issue that has given rise to such interest is about. It is very simple. When we established business links, we had to decide whether we would provide a 100 per cent. subsidy from the centre for a period without question.
It was clearly put to me by the partners in the business links venture—the training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce, local enterprise agencies, local authorities and the Confederation of British Industry—that they did not want a 100 per cent. subsidy from Government because it would then become a central Government organisation and they wanted local initiative, local discretion and local flexibility. I totally support that view.
One of the ways in which that can be assured is by those partners contributing to the funding, both by subvention from the partner organisations and by way of charges raised from individual companies which take advantage of the service. As, by definition, the need for charges will not come on stream for two to three years on the scale envisaged, one cannot guarantee at the outset the precise level of charges that will be raised. It is perfectly possible for someone to produce a report and say, "You can't be sure that you'll get the money." There will inevitably be questions.
I believe—there is perfectly good evidence for doing so—in the charges that we have made for consultancy schemes and in hard charging for export advice. I believe also that small companies will find those services worth paying for, but I cannot prove that in advance. The only way would be to do exactly that which the partners do not want—underwrite the whole lot from the beginning, at the taxpayer's expense. I refuse to do that.
The scheme which we put in place is imaginative and constructive. It was designed with the local element much to the forefront. As my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and other right hon and hon. Members said, the important thing is to make the scheme work and to give it every support. It is not controversial. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) rightly said that it featured in the Labour party's manifesto. I do not know how it got in that manifesto, but it did. Before the right hon. Gentleman gets carried away, I shall point out that it was featured in the Liberal manifesto. If there is one thing that creates anxiety in my mind, it is that I introduced an idea to which both main Opposition parties subscribe.

Telecommunications Companies

Mr. French: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist British telecommunications companies to develop commercial involvements in European and other markets. [16447]

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Government are continuing to press for rapid liberalisation of telecoms services and infrastructures in the European Union and world wide. The Overseas Project Board and Overseas Trade Services help operators and suppliers win a greater share of overseas business.

Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason that British telecoms companies are so successful in Europe is that this country and the Government set the worldwide agenda for privatisation, liberalisation and a sound regulatory framework? Does he agree also that another manifestation of the same success factor is the level of inward investment by cable companies?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This country is a test-bed for the development of the information infrastructure. We welcome inward investment, which has created jobs and helped to advance our technological base more rapidly. Most companies that have invested in this country are now also exporting to its benefit. There are also several joint ventures such as GPT, between GEC and Siemens, which has a massive telecoms contract in Moscow. The competitive instincts of the British market are leading us to succeed in other markets. I look forward to further developments in all aspects of the infrastructure—fixed link, mobile, supplies and services—around the world, as other countries follow our lead and liberalise their infrastructures and services.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to expand manufacturing industries; and if he will make a statement. [16449]

Mr. Page: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a substantial part of British manufacturing is accounted for by small firms? What are the Government doing to assist the vital part of the economy that they represent?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the important contribution made by small and medium enterprises—the proverbial acorns from which we hope oaks will grow, which contribute 25 per cent. to our gross domestic product. As my right hon. Friend the President just said, 200 business links have been created, which will give business men a single coherent signpost to advice, market research and other necessary services to help them expand. That will prevent them from being pushed from pillar to post. Most important of all is a proper, stable economic climate with low inflation and low interest rates, which gives the best basis for British business.

Mr. Purchase: Is it not pathetic that Conservative Members ask questions about expanding British manufacturing, given that a Conservative Government wiped out one third of Britain's manufacturing base in the 1980s? As things hot up as the consequence of an undervalued pound, capacity is insufficient to meet export demand. The Government preach their record, and it gives us no pleasure to make the other argument. The

Government are wholly responsible for wiping out one third of this country's manufacturing capacity, particularly in the west midlands.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear my answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock, in which I said that investment, exports, productivity and manufacturing were up. The hon. Gentleman seems to be ignoring the huge success of the Invest in Britain Bureau, which has brought into the country more than 300 companies in the manufacturing sector and created about 84,000 jobs. It is certainly helping to fulfil and expand Britain's manufacturing base.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend recall the frequent references of Labour Members to reports made by the Engineering Employer Federation a year or two ago, when those reports contained fairly depressing news? Has he noted the silence on the Opposition Benches since the Engineering Employers Federation began to report that orders, investment and manufacturing output were up? Is there not something wrong when Opposition Members talk only about bad news for Britain?

Mr. Page: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party seems to ignore the forecast that is being produced by the CBI, which suggests that in its view manufacturing investment will be up by about 8 per cent. this year. The London business school is saying that it will be up by about 15 per cent. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research is forecasting 9 per cent. Not all of them will be right, but they are all pointing in the right way. That shows that success is with us. It is all good news.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister not realise the offence that it causes to the public when they hear the self-congratulatory nonsense to which we have been listening and compare it with their experience of life? The people of Scotland have witnessed under this Government a reduction in the number of manufacturing units from more than 4,500 to 3,000. Manufacturing employment has been reduced from 563,000 jobs to 300,000. Does the Minister not realise that it is that sort of experience that will contribute tomorrow to the slaughter of the Tories in the Scottish local government elections, and next month in the English and Welsh local government elections? Even if his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, succeeds to the position that he covets, such statistics will be hung round the neck of the Government for many years to come.

Mr. Page: If the BBC were here, it would be banning that broadcast. It would be against the rules. Investment in Scotland has been at record levels. In the manufacturing sector, there has been an increase of about 25,000 jobs throughout the country. We can see the results overall. Every day, 1,000 jobs are being created. Unemployment has been decreasing by 1,000 a day over the past two years. These are enormous successes that should not be left on one side.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is evidence of a growing success of manufacturing industry, and not merely through the Engineering Employers Federation, where even small firms are starting to recruit? There is news from the Machine Tool Technologies Association to the effect that the machine tool industry is operating on a considerable


balance of trade surplus, and has been for some time. Is that not a knock in the eye for Opposition Members, who seem always to see their duty to write down and write off British industry as much as possible purely for party political reasons?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend produces the Machine Tool Technologies Association as a classic example. I can only agree with him. I hope to be travelling with a delegation to Milan to try to increase export potential in the next few months.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Mullin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with representatives of manufacturing industry about the availability of long-term finance; and if he will make a statement. [16451]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has frequent discussions with representatives of manufacturing industry. Many of these cover long-term finance. The Government can best encourage investment in manufacturing industry by providing a stable macro-economic environment based on low inflation and sound public finances.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that I was talking the other day to a member of the northern branch of the Engineering Employers Federation? He said that the greatest obstacles to the expansion of his business were the greed, myopia and excessive short-termism of British banks. Does the Minister's Department have plans to do anything about that, or is his party too deeply in hock to the bankers?

Mr. Evans: There is no more ludicrous a spectacle of new Labour than the hon. Gentleman presenting himself as the champion of manufacturing industry. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, during the 1980s, business investment in this country grew faster than in any other Group of Seven countries except Japan? Opposition Members may shout about it, but that is a fact.

Mrs. Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that many manufacturing industries, particularly in west Yorkshire—and in my own constituency since 1984—have been investing money since the early 1980s? Does he further agree that a slightly more sympathetic venture and help from banks would now be a great advantage to all those industries?

Mr. Evans: I think that my hon. Friend will be aware of the loan guarantee scheme, which is run through the Department of Trade and Industry. Changes were introduced in the Budget, to do with capital gains tax reinvestment, single company personal equity plan schemes and employee share schemes. A number of measures were taken to help investment, but I very much take on board the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are looking to the banks to make their contribution as well.

Business Links

Mr. Miller: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on business links in the North West. [16452]

Mr. Heseltine: Twelve business link outlets are currently open in the north-west. Approval has been granted for a further nine. Assessment panels will consider further proposals in April, June and September. When the regional network is complete, there will be more than 30 outlets.

Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement that there was greater scope for direction at the earlier stages of the scheme, by his Department? If so, what assessment has he made of the damage that that has done to the potential of the scheme in the north-west? More important, what steps has he taken to correct that weakness?

Mr. Heseltine: I explained to the House a few minutes ago that we have tried to preserve a balance between ensuring that quality is consistent across the whole network and ensuring the flexibility that the local partners quite understandably want. I believe that, from all the evidence available to me, we are making good progress in that direction. Recently, I spent a day at a major conference of business link chief executives, and the mood of optimism was extremely encouraging.

Post Office

Mr. Barnes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he intends to take to allow commercial freedom for the Post Office; and if he will make a statement. [16453]

Mr. Heseltine: The Post Office operates several businesses. We are actively engaged in widening the opportunity for Post Office Counters Ltd. and are helping to automate its services. We will announce any plans to change the present arrangements governing the remainder of the Post Office in due course.

Mr. Barnes: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), in connection with Post Office commercial practices, the President said that it was impossible to have commercial freedom operating in the public sector. Would he like to explain the blinkered economic thinking behind that set of ideas?

Mr. Heseltine: Absolutely. I do not understand how, if a taxpayers' guarantee stands behind a business, it can operate in total commercial freedom.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to give the Post Office within the public sector greater commercial freedom it would mean greater borrowing, which would be added to the public sector borrowing requirement and would eventually lead to higher taxes?

Mr. Heseltine: All those things would, of course, come within the Treasury rules, and that is something that no Government have ever been able to avoid. The House would have to answer basic questions about what it would expect me to do about Parcel Force, which is losing a significant amount of money travelling up and down the roads, in competition with private sector companies that could not survive with a financial regime of that sort.

Privatised Utilities (Executive Pay)

Mr. Pike: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures have been taken to prevent very


large pay and share option increases being provided for executives of privatised utilities. [16455]

Mr. Eggar: Pay increases for executives in the privatised utilities are a matter for the companies and their shareholders, not the Government.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that the public are increasingly concerned that the Government seem so loth to take any action to stop the obscene payments that have made to some of the chief executives and other officials of the privatised utilities? May I suggest that, as far as North West Water is concerned, where a large part of our bills is for long-term capital investment, the consumers should be given shares in respect of that investment and thereby given a say in what Sir Desmond Pitcher and others should be paid.

Mr. Eggar: The Labour party simply does not understand the benefits of privatisation—the improvements in the quality of service, the reductions in price and the benefits to consumers overall. The hon. Gentleman and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are completely captured by the politics of envy.

Exports

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the level of exports over the past year. [16456]

Mr. Needham: During the past year, British exports have broken all records, resulting in the lowest visible trade deficit since 1991. Exports are predicted to grow by a further 10 per cent. this year. In 1994, visible exports earned £135 billion, with volume and value up by 11 per cent. over 1993.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is the first time that economic recovery in Britain has been export led? Does that not underline the fact that Britain's economic recovery is soundly based and we can look forward to another two and a half years of rapid growth?

Mr. Needham: I hope that I can say to my hon. Friend that we can look forward to many years of export-led recovery, and that is a triumph for British industry and the British Government.

Health Services (London)

Mr. Peter Brooke: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the health service in London.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The decisions that I announced yesterday follow four separate statutory consultation exercises about hospital changes in south and east London and around Barnet and Edgware. In each case, the decisions measure up against the Government's key objectives for improving the health service in London—to strengthen specialist services by concentrating them in centres of excellence; to preserve and enhance medical teaching and research in the capital; to provide more modern acute hospital services closer to the major centres of population; and to release money to increase investment in family doctor and community health services which are badly needed in parts of the capital.
Those key elements of the Government's strategy will be familiar to the House. I set them out in a statement at the time of the publication of the Tomlinson report, and again when I announced my response. They have been frequently debated. I said on those occasions and I say again: the objectives of this strategy enjoy widespread support within the clinical and academic worlds and from independent commentators such as the King's Fund. The need for change in London is widely recognised, and widely recognised as long overdue.
I hear and understand the concerns that have been expressed, not least by right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). We considered very carefully the points made during the consultations, including those made by right hon. and hon. Members in their meetings with the Minister for Health and me. In particular, I was struck by the points made about the pace of change and the extended time scale of some of the announcements yesterday respond to those points.
Let me make it absolutely clear that no accident and emergency facility, or indeed any other, will close until Ministers are satisfied that the alternative facilities are not only available but capable of providing an improved service for patients.
My right hon. Friend asks specifically about the financial implications. The changes announced yesterday will be backed by £400 million of capital investment. That is on top of the £210 million that we are already spending on improved primary care. That is a substantial investment in a modern health service.
That money will buy, among other things, a new NHS hospital for Greenwich, an upgraded hospital in Barnet, complete with a state-of-the-art accident and emergency department and a world-beating centre for neurosciences and neurosurgery at King's. It will support the changes at the Royal Hospitals trust and Guy's and St. Thomas's, which will develop them as centres of supreme excellence in treatment, teaching and research. In addition, we are investing substantially in other hospitals such as the Homerton, Lewisham, King's and the Royal Free.
Aside from the direct clinical benefits, we expect those changes to lead to substantial revenue savings which we estimate will be of the order of £75 million each year once the changes are complete. That is money which can and will be invested elsewhere in the health service, both in community health services in London's areas of greatest need and outside the capital.
I say to the House that, at the moment, rather than getting £75 million out, we are putting in £28 million each year, supporting the duplication and fragmentation of services around the four areas covered by my announcement. That must be a good exchange by anyone's standards.
For St Bartholomew's and the Royal London, capital investment will total nearly £240 million. It is expected to deliver revenue savings of £30 million a year; the current subsidy for the trust is about £8 million a year.
Let me say to my right hon. Friend that the changes that I announced yesterday, which take our strategy forward, are not primarily about finance. [Interruption.] These changes are about improving the quality of care. They are about better specialist services, where medical expertise is enhanced by bringing clinicians together to benefit from each other's ideas; they are about better teaching and better research, and about linking world-class hospitals to multi-faculty colleges; they are about equipping modern hospitals to respond more flexibly to the pressures that they face, and harness the awesome advances in medical technology; and they are about providing more health care where Londoners need it most badly—in their communities, their doctors' surgeries and the streets where they live. It is on that basis that I made my decisions.
Change is never easy, but to fail to deal with the need for change in London would be to fail to deal with the needs of Londoners. I am determined that, as a result of these changes, we shall have a health service in London that is fit for the 21st century, in which we can all take great pride.

Mr. Brooke: I thank my right hon. Friend for answering my question. Her policy of rationalisation and the concentration of specialties in London enjoys considerable support among Conservative Members; against that background, will she answer a number of specific questions about Bart's?
First, can my right hon. Friend tell us anything about the current state of negotiations with the City corporation about a continued health service on the Bart's site? Does she recognise that Bart's is a national—and, indeed, international—asset, and that, in a post-industrial society, such assets are of great importance in communicating British medical excellence to the world?
Secondly, can my right hon. Friend outline as far as possible—I recognise the difficulties—her plans to ensure that the national asset to which I have referred is protected and enhanced in the merger at Whitechapel? What will be the future deployment of the historic site at Smithfield? I use the word "historic" in a living rather than a heritage sense.

Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's recognition of the need to rationalise and concentrate services. That message has been repeated time and again over the past 80 years, but with increasing intensity in recent years.
My right hon. Friend asked what stage had been reached in discussions with the City corporation. I am glad to say that a memorandum of understanding is likely to be agreed between the corporation and the local health authorities next week. Their ideas have been based very much on the Newchurch report, in the hope of a practical response to the present-day needs of the local community.
My right hon. Friend referred to the national and international significance of the hospital's ethos and work. I said explicitly in my statement yesterday that I wanted that ethos and culture to be preserved and enhanced during the move—albeit a move to the Royal London. That tradition is important, and, as my right hon. Friend knows, I fully appreciate the long history of St Bartholomew's; but other hospitals have been able to move successfully.
For example, St George's moved to Tooting, although that took 21 years. I do not think that 21 years of indecision would benefit my right hon. Friend's constituents, or the eminent professionals who work at this distinguished hospital.
As for the site, I announced yesterday that a project team would look for practical options fitting to the site on which there has been such a history of excellent medicine over many hundreds of years. I can inform the House that Sir Ronald Grierson has agreed to chair that committee. I hope that Lord Rees-Mogg will also be a member of the committee as well as a number of other distinguished academics and clinicians.

Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Lady should know that her announcement of the closure of Bart's and the London Chest will be greeted with dismay and anger in east London. We do not expect our services to improve; we are fearful that they are deteriorating.
When the right hon. Lady says that there is widespread acceptance for the plans, is she not aware that, apart from what the first King's Fund report said and Tomlinson backed up, a succession of reports since then have revealed that, far from being over-bedded, London is short of beds in a major way?
When the right hon. Lady speaks of having gone through a consultative process, is she not aware that, at every stage in the consultation, her proposals have been resisted by the people directly concerned and by the community health councils? Is it not becoming a farce to speak of consultations which have no effect whatever on the area authorities, the regional authorities or the Secretary of State herself?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is my task to make sure that decisions are taken only when, after careful discussion, I am satisfied that they will lead to improvements in health care. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I know his part of London extremely well. I know the dearth of primary and community services and the benefit to his constituents of the £210 million being invested in primary care in London.
As for beds, all reports have reinforced the dilemma of excessive duplication of specialty beds. The difficulty is that the specialty beds are in units below the size necessary to gain the full benefits of research teams and managing a modern health service.
When the right hon. Gentleman considers the specialty reviews chaired by eminent clinicians, many of them leading members of the royal colleges, he will see time and again the message repeated—as it was in the King's Fund report and the Tomlinson report—that the duplication and fragmentation of the specialty units mean that we do not get the maximum benefit from the substantial professional and financial commitment that we are putting into health care in London. To achieve precisely that excellence and quality of care, it is necessary to take those decisions.

Sir John Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that democratic politics is about delivering to people what the majority want, and not about telling the majority of people what they should have? Does my right hon. Friend not accept now that she is doing the wrong thing, in the wrong way, at the wrong time and in the wrong place? Finally, now that my right hon. Friend has had time to reflect on her precipitate decision, which she clearly took after seeing my colleagues and myself with a weekend intervening, will she recognise that perhaps the decision was the wrong one? Will she now reconsider it?

Mrs. Bottomley: I well understand my hon. Friend's strong commitment on behalf of his local hospital and the service it has provided to his constituents. I also heard my hon. Friend saying that he has had 25 meetings on the issue.
The need for modernising the health service and bringing together state-of-the-art accident and emergency departments is repeated time and again by clinical standards advisory groups and the teams of professionals, who time and again argue about the better clinical outcome of a consultant-led service. I know that my hon. Friend felt strongly about questions of timing, transport, the ambulance service and the improvement in primary care. I hope that he will feel that, in my announcement yesterday, I have indeed considered all those elements of his requests. He knows that the health authority will be consulting about what further uses could be developed at the Edgware hospital, to fit the needs of the community not only for today, but for the next century.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that she made a grave mistake by not coming to the House to make her announcement? It is the national health service, not the Secretary of State's health service, so should not serious weight be given to the public's views about the proposals on which she consulted? If, for example, in relation to Bart's, Guy's or any other hospital, 1 million-plus people take one view, and, as in the case of Guy's, 23 people take a different view, and if the right hon. Lady then takes the view of the 23, would it not be wrong to say that she has listened to the public consultation?
The right hon. Lady said that accident and emergency units would close in five years' time, on the assumption that the remainder of the health service in London could provide an alternative. What guarantee can she give that there will not be just as much need then for the units that are in place now?
How much of the money that the right hon. Lady has announced is new money? Is it not the case that none of the capital money is new money? In view of her letter to the chairman of the South Thames regional health authority, it appears that the local commission's bid for another £29 million as the minimum needed to make the


changes viable will have to be met from the regional budget, not by any additional Government money being provided as a result of her announcement yesterday.

Mrs. Bottomley: In the hon. Gentleman's lengthy contribution to the debate in the House a week ago, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health responded, he praised the consultation process in his area. The reconfigured proposals and the change of timing have arisen very much out of the consultation process, listening to the concerns of local people. However, the argument remains about the need, over time, to concentrate essential in-patient acute services on one site and to develop at the Guy's end a state-of-the-art centre for diagnostic day-care treatment and services.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman will see that development increasingly being regarded with great respect, not only in this country but internationally. He knows that there are proposals for Guy's to accommodate some elective work and some mental health services, over time. However, above all it is the commitment to integrating clinical services with research and education—having the research campus at the Thameside site—which is spoken of with great respect and excitement by many people in the clinical field.
On the question of accident and emergency departments, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of Sir Norman Browse, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Howard Baderman, a doctor and an adviser to the chief medical officer, who time and again talk about the great number of A and E departments in London, far above need—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am quoting Sir Norman Browse and Howard Baderman. They also talk about the importance of quality, and of having a consultant-led service.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that there will be no change in his A and E department until we are satisfied that proper alternative arrangements are in place to provide the service that his constituents need.
On the question of money, over time there is certainly no justification for London having a subsidy in transitional relief. London needs to come into better balance. The capital money is new money, to be developed over time to ensure that we can actually deliver world-class hospitals. It is new money.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow these long exchanges to continue with so many Members seeking and deserving to put questions to the Secretary of State. I ask for brisk questions to the Secretary of State. I hope that she will also co-operate by giving brisk replies.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not yet met one individual in my constituency who agrees with the changes? Secondly, years ago I fought to retain grammar schools because of their long traditions. Hon. Members on this side of the House are destroying the same traditions in the hospitals, which is a form of vandalism. Is she aware that many people do not believe—and figures support their view—that we have too many hospital beds in London?
My constituents want little hospitals that they can get to and walk to, and where they can visit their people in the evening. That is the factor involved in the attack on Edgware hospital. From there, my constituents must drive

six and a half miles to Northwick Park hospital. It will take anything up to one and a quarter hours. One could be dead by the time one arrives.

Mrs. Bottomley: I accept my right hon. Friend's comments about his constituents' attachment—which I share—to the existing pattern of services, but I can refer only to the comments of Professor Nick Bosanquet, who said:
London health services may have had a glorious past but their quality in the future depends on our willingness to face up to the difficult choices now.
Mounting evidence exists about the clinical outcomes of different styles of treatment and patterns of care. It would be negligent of the holder of my office not to take seriously mounting and pressing evidence from leading clinicians.
My right hon. Friend will know not only that, in his region, he has access to Northwick Park, the Royal Free and the brand new Barnet general hospitals, but that the service at Edgware hospital will continue to provide for the vast majority of patients who use it. It has an out-patients department and a minor injuries clinic, and it will look to see what other services it can provide in relation to the needs of an increasingly aging population. Those are the health needs of today and tomorrow.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Is the Secretary of State aware of both the anger and incomprehension among staff at the Brook hospital, particularly those in the neurosurgical team? Why have neither she nor officers of her Department held any discussions with that team, and why have they ignored all its advice to her Department, especially in relation to its concerns about the separation of neurosurgery from other acute and trauma work?
When she says that she wishes to place services nearer to the patient, is she aware that regional specialties at Brook hospital serve south-east London and Kent? Does it make any sense to move them closer to central London, so that no neurosurgery unit exists from Dover to Lambeth?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am particularly pleased to respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. The neurosciences were the one area where we did not accept the specialty review proposals that I described. That was because the recommendation of Sir Michael Thompson, the vice-chancellor and principal of the university of Birmingham, who led the London research review, identified the institute of psychiatry at Denmark Hill as a unique opportunity to build a centre of excellence.
I have received a letter from Sir Michael Thompson, in which he says—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will have seen the number of hon. Members who wish to question her on the statement. I have already asked her to give brisk answers, and I hope that she will paraphrase the letter.

Mrs. Bottomley: Very quickly. Sir Michael merely said that the chairman of the expert group on neurosciences, Professor Ingrid Allan, stressed the eminence of the institute and the special health authority, and, in particular, its high reputation from an international point of view. He said:


You are to be congratulated on your action, which will create a unique centre where the results of a leading research group will more readily benefit the patients of the NHS.

Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when she made a statement 13 months ago, I complimented her on grasping the nettle of London hospital reorganisation? I continue to admire her courage in tackling the issue, but may I plead with her, in doing so, to show rather more sensitivity than she has in the past couple of days? She has made several references to consultation, but does she agree that consultation implies listening to what people have to say and taking account of their views?
My right hon. Friend must be aware of the volume of opposition—much of it well informed and well argued—to the proposals made by Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust as to the reallocation of services between the two sites. Will she take that into account? May I invite her, as I suspect that she may not have done so, to read the report of last week's debate, in which I and a number of other hon. Members raised several pertinent concerns about Guy's and St. Thomas's, to which we have received no response whatsoever? Will she consider them, and my alternative suggestions as to the way forward? May I urge her, even at this late stage, to think again?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend, certainly for his comments to the effect that the nettle has to be grasped. There is little doubt that delay and uncertainty will not serve London's health professionals or patients. Change has to be addressed. It is always possible to look for further options. These decisions are finely balanced, and the one that he describes is one of the most finely balanced, as I think he will remember I said explicitly in my previous statement. I can assure him that I have read the debate of a week ago, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
We have taken the view that the issues raised have been thoroughly and properly addressed in what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) identified as a particularly thorough consultation process. It is now for the trust, in association with the local health authority, to start specifying in a more detailed manner the way forward, but what I am clear about is that Guy's will remain an outstanding name associated with research and education.
The opportunity, for example, to bring the school of nursing to join the medical school is one of great importance, and, as King's joins the medical school, the advantage for medical schools outside London of associating medicine with biomedical sciences will lead to even better standards.

Ms Tessa Jowell: May I return to the Secretary of State's rather evasive answer about money? So that no one is in any doubt, will she confirm that she will make £29 million available as requested by the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority—extra, new money that has not been raided from any other budget? Will she give the House that unequivocal assurance?

Mrs. Bottomley: What I have made clear is that the money will be available to invest in the capital programmes necessary for the changes envisaged. After

all, this is the Government who have put £1.3 billion into the health service this year, and that is new money. We would not have made our announcement until confident that, year on year, the money—the taxpayer's money—would indeed be available. In the case of the Guy's and St. Thomas's project, that amounts to a new capital programme of £90 million.

Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend will know of my concern about Edgware hospital. This afternoon she has stressed the need for greater primary health care, so will she say how much additional money she intends to put into additional primary health care in Barnet?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will have heard me say that the total amount now going into primary health care is about £210 million, funding about 1,000 new initiatives. The range of family doctor services and hospital-at-home schemes throughout London is phenomenal. I believe that the figure for my hon. Friend's constituency is £15 million, but I am somewhat hesitant to say so dogmatically, and I will confirm the figure to my hon. Friend.

Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that nothing has made this Government more unpopular in London than her complete unwillingness to listen on the matter of hospital closures? Is she aware that ordinary people in Hackney are very angry about the closure of Bart's, because promises of money for the Homerton and promises of money for primary care are just promises? We know that, in losing Bart's, we are losing access to a world-class facility.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady has had a phenomenal investment programme at the Homerton hospital, in the area where people live. With the Homerton hospital, she is in the same position as her right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Lewisham hospital and King's College hospital have multi-million pound programmes, because health care must be delivered where people live.
It is outrageous for the hon. Lady to say that her constituents should be destined to travel needlessly for routine health care. I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health have visited Homerton hospital, so we are well aware of the enormous investment programme and the changes under way there.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) spoke about the regional specialties that are presently at the Brook. May I turn to the local needs, and thank the Minister of State and his predecessor for helping to get the co-operation in buying the Queen Elizabeth Military hospital so that it can succeed the Brook on the other side of Shooters hill, and bring much of the acute work from Greenwich district hospital?

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. There will he a significant improvement. As he well knows, the present buildings are quite unsuited to the delivery of modern health care. His constituents and people in Greenwich will undoubtedly benefit.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Would the Secretary of State like to know that the people of east


London will be outraged by her remarks about casualty and emergency? Is she aware that she is closing casualty in central London, while in Newham, where people do live, we have an eight-hour wait for casualty and emergency?
In respect of concentration on one site at Whitechapel, is the Secretary of State aware that she and her Department have consistently made wrong calculations about demand for the ambulance service? If she can make wrong calculations on a relatively simple matter, should she not retain the buildings at Bart's and the London chest hospital until the demand is shown? Would it not be irresponsible for her to do anything else?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly and rightly referred to the problems faced by the London ambulance service. There has been significant improvement in the standards being delivered by the service, and we hope to see more. He will also know that the outcome for individuals in an accident depends largely on a paramedic arriving swiftly at their side.
Thereafter, having a high-quality accident and emergency department with all the specialty services around it is important. The hon. Gentleman will know that London is very much better provided with accident and emergency services, even after any number of changes being debated today, than other parts of the country.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend well knows that primary care in London has, for far too many years, been worse than it is anywhere else in the country. The quid pro quo for Londoners of all these changes is that primary care should be brought up to the standard of the rest of the country. Will she now accelerate the movement of resources even more quickly into the provision of primary care services all over the capital—in outer London as well as in inner London?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. The work undertaken by the London initiative zone and the primary care support force, which is always slower to start with, will now accelerate. One thousand projects funded to the tune of £210 million have been an excellent start. With the new regions, we want to ensure that the changes are spread, as my hon. Friend says, not only in inner London, but in outer London and through into the home counties. Londoners must have the standard of primary care that others have.

Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Royal Free Hampstead trust in my constituency will, according to newspaper reports—which are increasingly becoming the only way of obtaining information from the Department of Health—be expected to take up the slack occasioned by the closure of Guy's and Bart's, certainly for accidents and emergencies, will there be new money for the Royal Free hospital for the undoubted expansion of the capital scheme and the undoubted increase in staff and nurses? Will the Secretary of State therefore cancel the proposal to reduce the ambulance service in Cressy road in my constituency from its present six ambulances to two?

Mrs. Bottomley: I always find it ironic when Labour Members preach to us about resources. I happened to work with the health service when the Labour party was in power and cut nurses' pay and money for the health service. The Conservative party puts much more money into the health service.
As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, her health authority is currently deciding that it wishes to send more patients to the Royal Free and take them away from some of the hospitals that they used to use. We have equitable funding, in which money is allocated to the London health authorities, taking account of their need. It is a national health service, and it is only right to have a national approach to the allocation of resources and for that money to be spent fairly and effectively.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My right hon. Friend has some arguments in her favour on central London hospitals. She has not succeeded as a senior member of the Cabinet, because, having listened to hard-faced accountants and bureaucrats in her Department and elsewhere, she has not then taken her own essential, human, social, clinical, medical and political judgments.
That is why I am glad that you, Madam Speaker, have given me permission to raise on the Adjournment tonight the future existence of Edgware general hospital. The proposal to close the accident and emergency unit is outrageous. Consultations with the local public were dismissed out of hand by Sir William Staveley in his regional health authority final consultation meetings. My right hon. Friend must think again about the proposal—it is different from central London; we do not have enough medical facilities, and the other hospitals are too far away.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will clearly have time to develop his arguments at even greater length this evening. Decisions are made on the basis of improving the quality of clinical care. He will know that the development of a massive £29 million new hospital in Barnet will have an impact on the provision of services locally.
But Edgware hospital will continue to provide for at least half the accident cases who can be treated without a specialist service, and about 80 per cent. of those who use the hospital for out-patient appointments. We believe that it will be able to develop even greater services in response to the needs of an aging population in the light of the consultation that I know the health authority intends to begin shortly.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: The Secretary of State in her statement stressed the fact that a new hospital would be opened in Greenwich. She conveniently forgot to mention that the price paid would be the closure of two existing hospitals, as well as the loss of the two regional specialty units.
Does she not recognise that the overwhelming weight of local opinion argued that two hospitals were necessary in Greenwich, and that two into one would not go? Does she not recognise that her decision flies in the face of local opinion in Greenwich as well as everywhere else in London? The people of London are sick to death of seeing their health service being cut, cut and cut again by a Minister who puts finance ahead of every other consideration.

Mrs. Bottomley: In recent years, the people of London have seen record levels of immunisation, cancer screening, treatment and care. It is no good the hon. Gentleman dismissing that as though he disregards the evidence.

Mr. Raynsford: Record waiting lists.

Mrs. Bottomley: Last year, there was a 25 per cent. fall in one-year waiters. The hon. Gentleman is right—


there is more to do. The health service needs rationalising, just as health services in similar capital cities around the world need rationalising. It is clear that the Labour party will never be a party of government, because it can only be a party of protest. Facing the issues fairly and making difficult decisions is part of government. The Opposition have the luxury of constant populist protest.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Has not the population of London fallen over several decades, with many people migrating to counties like Essex? Is it not equally true that local health authorities in Essex and the other home counties have had to make difficult decisions on rationalisation and the improvement of their health services, and they have had to do so without the benefit of full and fair capitation, because money is also being tied up in London in a system which, as yet, is unreformed?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I have the responsibility for a national health service. The problems in London have occurred because the population has declined overall over the decades. People in the home counties would rather go to excellent hospitals closer to home. Medical advances mean that lengths of stay have fallen dramatically. New technology and diagnostic and day techniques mean that the need for beds and buildings is not the prime criterion. We want appropriate modern facilities for a top-quality health service as close as possible to where people live.

Mr. Jim Dowd: Apart from asking the Secretary of State why, if this is such good news, she had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the House to make this statement, is she aware that Lewisham accident and emergency cannot cope as it is today, and that the regional health authority admits, in its own curious words, that it is "undersized"? The investment planned to cope with the additional burden as a result of the closure of Guy's could be used today to make it serve the purpose and needs it faces at the moment, let alone what will happen when Guy's closes.
What can the Secretary of State say to the people of Lewisham, who have been involved, for the third time in five years, in a major consultation exercise involving acute service provision in London, only to see their views completely and utterly disregarded?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been formidable investment at Lewisham hospital. Similarly, King's hospital—which some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents may use—has experienced £8 million-worth of investment. There has been a £3 million investment at Lewisham. That is a hospital in which we are investing close to where people live.
At the same time, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a significant number of people still use A and E departments in London because the primary care services are not yet good enough. He represents an area which has a formidable programme of investment in GP and primary care services. I believe that that is the way to a better balanced and a better-quality health service for his constituents.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Since the main arguments for these controversial changes rest

on academic and clinical considerations, would my right hon. Friend consider asking the senior academics and clinicians to go out and campaign for the changes? If they are prepared to advise her in private and in reports that this makes sense from a medical and clinical point of view, should they not speak in the same vein?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made a point of great importance. He will be aware that Lord Annan, Lord Flowers and Sir Stuart Sutherland have spent a great deal of time trying to deliver precisely that objective. Four multi-faculty colleges with the hospital clusters around them is the way to provide world-class centres for research and education. The report from the leading members of the royal colleges in respect of delivering the change has been extremely important and significant. However, I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend: the louder they speak, the greater confidence that will carry.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As someone who has been, and remains, a long-standing patient at Bart's, and as someone who spent several weeks being treated on its wards; as someone who has spoken to nurses, doctors, administrators, and patients and visitors on the wards and the general public downstairs in the A and E section of Bart's, can I tell the Secretary of State that the overwhelming opinion in Bart's is that the hospital should stay open? Why does she insist on taking on public opinion in that part of London where people say, "Let us keep our hospital"? That is what the people are saying and that is what they want. Why can they not have it?

Mrs. Bottomley: I totally accept the deep loyalty felt by people who work in hospitals, particularly those who work in Bart's, as my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) spelled out so forcefully. However, if we are to have a comprehensive service, free at the point of use and able to pioneer new treatments, such as gene therapy for cystic fibrosis, artificial livers at King's and the new breakthroughs identified by the Medical Research Council, we must address the need for change. That is why the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council and many others have commended the commitment to address those underlying issues.
The hon. Gentleman is right, in that there is a tension between the wishes of local people and the need to deliver clinical excellence. I believe that I must be guided by the need to provide the best possible clinical and health care service for the people of this country, but that we should do all we can to ensure that we take people with us, and that there is a warm welcome for them as they come together on another site.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, outside London, it will be regarded as good news that she has taken the decisions, which have been made more difficult by the fact that so many of her predecessors ducked them? Does she agree that, even after all those changes have been made, London will enjoy a network of hospitals that will be the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom? Does she further agree that, for the average Londoner, the urgent need is to improve the primary health care system, exactly as she has proposed?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.

Ms Joan Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what precise arrangements


she believes would have to be put in place before the accident and emergency unit at Guy's could be closed? What would be the cost of converting Philip Harris house for the new arrangements that she proposes, and how much money from charitable funds would have to be repaid?

Mrs. Bottomley: I made it very clear that, before it will be possible to close the A and E unit at Guy's, there must be significant improvements in the ambulance service, together with a judgment, connected with the improvement in primary care, as to the likely use and capacity of the St. Thomas's A and E department. Of course, that is one of the largest units in London, taking about twice as many ambulance cases a day as the unit at Guy's. The hon. Lady will remember that, when I made my statement a year ago, that was one of the key factors in deciding which should be the primary site for the acute in-patient hospital—a strategy supported by people on both sites.
Philip Harris house will be used for about 75 per cent. of its original purposes, and I am pleased to say that the special trustees have said that they will support the plan, and are discussing the possibility of contributing to the intended modifications. Other special trustees will consider their position.

Ms Ruddock: What will it cost?

Mrs. Bottomley: The modification may cost about £10 million, although that could be a high estimate.

Sir Edward Heath: Much as I should like to deal with some of the more general aspects of the statement, especially the political implications for those who represent London seats, I shall restrict myself to one particular aspect—the closure of the Brook hospital, and the specialist neurosurgery required, which, according to the programme, will now be supplied by King's. All the specialists to whom I have spoken—and several have been on the telephone to me today—are extremely worried about that prospect, because of the distance to be travelled by what are usually acute cases.
As my right hon. Friend knows, over the past two weeks there have been two incidents in which patients have had to be taken long distances. One patient in Maidstone had to be taken to Southampton for treatment, and the other, from Sidcup, had to be taken to Leeds. I shall not go into detail about those cases, because some of the events are the subject of legal activity. However, the thought that in future all such cases will have to be taken to King's frightens the specialists.
In London, we are short of suitable beds for specialist neurosurgery. Although King's has specialist services, do we not now have the opportunity to concentrate in the long term on the services required to meet the need in a place that people in south London, Kent and the adjacent areas can use more easily, without having to travel long distances?

Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear with me, but I must quote to him something that the chairman of the neurosciences review said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Forgive me, Madam Speaker, but the decisions are too important to be taken without independent, authoritative clinical advice, as I hope my right hon. Friend will agree. He said:

The historical fragmentation of neurosciences in London and the south east has limited the development of large tertiary centres of excellence, which is the accepted pattern in the rest of the UK. Whilst much good work is being done in the smaller units, in some fields it is tending to fall behind the rest of the country.
It is that unique opportunity to move the service to a research and teaching centre that gives London its prime position not just nationally but internationally. I sought to reinforce the point from the vice-chancellor of Birmingham university, that it was a unique opportunity to have a unique service on Denmark Hill. I believe that that is the proper justification for taking a decision that I well understand that local people might have wished had gone a different way.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister explain to the people of my borough who love, admire and respect Bart's hospital, but who also recognise it as a valuable institution and as their local hospital, what will happen to the land and the site when that hospital is closed altogether? Who will make money from that sale?
Is the Minister aware that there is already enormous pressure on the casualty units at the Whittington, Royal Free and Homerton hospitals and at University College hospital as a result of the closure of Bart's? Is she prepared to close more casualty units and create even longer waiting lists, with more people waiting on trolleys for operations or emergency treatment, as currently occurs throughout north London?

Mrs. Bottomley: The difficulty in London has been created because we have so many small hospitals, and it is much harder to manage the peaks and flows of patient care. At times, there is a great rush to use a hospital, and at other times it is under less pressure. The recent report about neurosciences again made the point that larger units can manage their beds better. That message was reinforced by the inner-London chief executives' report about trying to strike the right balance as we change and move forward.
We measure the outcomes of the service; we now have clear targets in terms of the patients charter. The current service is quite different from that provided in the past, and health authorities must deliver results.
As far as the Bart's site is concerned, I think that I made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that we have set up a project team to consider options in light of the history of a place which has been associated with state-of-the-art medicine and research. Similarly, I hope that the City of London initiative will show results shortly, with a memorandum of understanding to provide a service for local people.

Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to respond to the consultation document in relation to Guy's and St Thomas's hospitals by extending the time that the accident and emergency service at Guy's will remain open until the end of 1998.
As to Bart's and the Royal London hospital trust, as an outer London Member I am concerned at the enormous capital investment that is involved. My right hon. Friend cited the figure of £240 million. However, my recollection is that the consultation document referred to a revenue saving in that trust of just over £22 million. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that that represents good value for


money? Will she consider whether some of the other options, which might involve a rationalisation against both sites, merit further deliberation?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can give my hon. Friend a very clear assurance on that front. He will know that the hospitals involved have a considerable backlog of maintenance, amounting to about £87 million. We estimate that the gross capital spend would be about £239 million, and that land sales would realise a considerable sum. The revenue savings would be about £30 million per year, and that investment is very justified.
I must make it clear that the guiding principle is not efficiency or streamlining costs, important though those issues are: it is to concentrate centres of expertise so that they can compete into the next century.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: Does not the Secretary of State realise that everything that she has said this afternoon is completely at variance with the everyday experience of Londoners? Why has she failed completely to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who asked what the knock-on effect would be for hospitals such as the Whittington, which serves my constituents? Its services are already overloaded, and it is currently cancelling acute operations because it has run out of money. How will the Secretary of State address the needs of people such as my 78-year-old constituent whose prostate operation was cancelled for that reason?

Mrs. Bottomley: There are problems with the health service in London, which is why it is so necessary to address change. The other day, the King's Fund said that there are real problems in developing primary care and concentrating specialty services. To stand still, or allow the service to fossilise, will not address the real needs of the hon. Lady's constituents or those of my hon. Friends in developing a health service fit for the 21st century.
As for the hon. Lady's constituents, there has been a fall in the number of people waiting for treatment a long time. There has already been considerable investment in primary care. I hope that that will result in even better standards and quality for the hon. Lady's constituents in the months and years ahead.

Mr. John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents must currently travel up to 60 miles to receive treatment at more expensive specialty units in London? Will she confirm that rationalisation of hospital provision in London is a necessary first step to establishing new specialty centres outside London and closer to where large numbers of people live?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is increasingly true that people would rather be treated closer to home. Rapid investment in the health service throughout the country, and certainly in the home counties, means that care for which previous generations travelled to London can be provided locally. That is precisely the dilemma. Provided that we ensure that London centres maintain a prime position in research both nationally and internationally, some of my hon. Friend's constituents will want still to receive treatment in London for state-of-the-art, pioneering or perhaps experimental care—but they will want routine health care close to home.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: After all the comments, I hope that the Secretary of State realises that her case is as dubious as her excuses for not putting her case to the House. Will she acknowledge that even the proposals that stem from the Tomlinson review have been widely attacked as wrong and damaging? For example, plans for Edgware hospital were never even part of that review, but result—as do the near-closure of University College hospital and the threat to Bart's and Guy's—from the internal market introduced by the right hon. Lady's disastrous so-called reforms?
Why has the Secretary of State ignored the anger of local people? She is aware that past cuts already mean fewer acute beds left in London than in any other major British city. How many more beds will be lost as a result of the proposals that the right hon. Lady announced today?
Does the right hon. Lady accept that her obstinate refusal to call a halt to closures and to make a fresh assessment of health needs in London is leading directly to the closure of renowned centres of excellence such as the London chest hospital, Bart's, and even Guy's? All known conversions of accident and emergency units to minor injury units have always been a precursor to the hospital becoming a major casualty.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the East London health authority, whose detailed business case has not yet been put before the right hon. Lady, agreed to proposals to close the London chest hospital and Bart's only if £238 million for redevelopment was absolutely assured? The Secretary of State's letter refers only to that funding being a high priority, which she also said about the funding needed for Guy's and St. Thomas's. Will the right hon. Lady give a categorical assurance that the demands made of her by the East London health authority will be fulfilled?
Does the Secretary of State realise that the proposals for Guy's will leave 17 floors empty, and that the facilities now provided will have to be recreated? Philip Harris house, which has a purpose-built, state-of-the-art cancer unit and renal facilities, will be used for only three years, and 18 desperately needed intensive care units with state-of-the-art facilities that are being fitted even as we speak, will be ripped out as soon as that house is handed over. Does not the Secretary of State realise that that is clinical and financial vandalism?
Will the right hon. Lady find Government time—for the first time in her history as Secretary of State for Health—for a debate on the Floor of the House, once we have an opportunity properly to assess the implications of the proposals?

Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Lady is a real example of turning the clock back. Her predecessors in her job recognised the need for change in London. Alongside the right hon. Lady's approach to every other health issue, she is out for consultation or a moratorium. She never faces a difficult decision.
We understand that the Leader of the Opposition is now saying, "No more money." How will the right hon. Lady cope with no more money, no difficult decisions to be faced, support for every protest and the inflaming of every pay claim? Goodness knows what would happen to the health care of Londoners. Those of us, unlike the right hon. Lady, who were working in Brixton and Peckham when there was a Labour Government, were aware of the


misfortune of the entire process. I know exactly who would be the first to suffer if ever there were a party such as the right hon. Lady's in government.
We have comprehensively discussed the issue facing London, except that I have not properly informed the right hon. Lady and others of the extremely encouraging progress at University College hospital, which is now under way. It is part of the picture of four multi-faculty colleges with a cluster of hospitals round them.
The issue is not primarily about hospital beds. It is a matter of having the right services in the right place. We need beds. We need low-tech beds, as Professor Jarman has said time and again. That is why it is so important that there are about 1,800 low-tech beds in the pipeline. It is very important that that programme should go forward.
I have given a clear commitment that the money is available. Of course there must be detailed plans before final approval is given. London needs clear progress. We do not need further hesitation. We need to build for the future, for the 21st century. The right hon. Lady and the Labour party offer dither, delay and, once again, interminable review.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: We have just heard locally that we shall have to take another 10,600 houses in the part of Kent which I represent as part of the continuing expansion of the population, which is moving out of London. To hear London Members complaining about a six-mile journey to hospital makes some of us laugh. We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for having set up the necessary changes to ensure that we in Kent are beginning to secure the sort of resources that will make it possible for us to treat ex-Londoners and native inhabitants of Kent to the highest standards, which would be impossible if the changes were not made.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend warmly for his remarks, which are precisely to the point. In London, hospital care has been excessively identified with buildings and institutions. In the home counties, there is a much higher standard of primary and community care. We need a better balance. As my hon. Friend has said, when the population moves to the home counties, people are reluctant to travel. As I have said time and again, I am passionately committed to our prime position internationally. This country is the place where breakthroughs take place.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Will my right hon. Friend address the serious transport issue in Barnet, which is the borough in my constituency? There is a physical block in the middle of the borough—the A1. Endless cars and lorries use the road during daytime hours, and that block is life-threatening. Will my right hon. Friend consult the Department of Transport? Will she assure the House that the new accident and emergency department at Barnet general hospital will not open until she is entirely satisfied that lives will not be put at risk because it is not possible to cross a physical barrier?

Mrs. Bottomley: I undertake to my hon. Friend to have precisely those discussions. I have made it clear in my announcement that the decision is subject to completion of the new phase at Barnet, to improvement in primary care, to necessary changes in the London ambulance service, and to being satisfied on transport issues.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). He said that people from London are often unaware of the much greater distances that people travel to an accident and emergency department outside London. It is getting a paramedic to the scene in the swiftest possible time that appears to be the crucial factor in preserving life.

Ferry Safety

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on ferry safety.
The tragic loss of the Estonia raised again the question of safety of roll on/roll off ferries. Work has taken place in the United Kingdom, Scandinavia and, notably, within the International Maritime Organisation's panel of experts on possible ways of enhancing their safety. This work includes computer-modelling research, which I instructed the Marine Safety Agency to undertake. The research investigated the effect that bulkheads might have on survivability in the event of water invading the car deck.
The preliminary findings provide new insight into how ships can be designed or redesigned to avoid future losses such as the Herald of Free Enterprise and the Estonia. They show that the fitting of transverse bulkheads can further enhance the survivability of a ship with water on its car deck. The degree of enhancement will depend on the initial survivability standard of the ship. The higher the survivability standard, the greater the effect of fitting transverse bulkheads.
In the light of that research, I believe that it is incumbent on the Government, with operators and the international maritime community, to seek to agree further improvements to survivability standards and to introduce transverse bulkheads to roll on/roll off ferries as appropriate. As always, consideration of these measures must include evaluation of the potential safety benefits and costs involved.
The preliminary results of the research were made available to the IMO's panel of experts, whose interim report to the Maritime Safety Committee has just been issued. The panel recommends enhancing both the damage and the intact survivability of roll on/roll off ferries by requiring them to be able to survive with levels of water on the car deck. These recommendations point to the fitting of transverse bulkheads. The panel's conclusions and recommendations on enhanced survivability and other aspects of ferry safety will be considered by the Maritime Safety Committee in May, with a diplomatic conference to adopt amendments to the Safety of Lives at Sea convention likely in November. I will ensure that the United Kingdom will be closely involved in those discussions. Although the panel's many detailed recommendations will require full and careful analysis, I wish to place on record both our appreciation for the work that they have undertaken to date, and our support for the general thrust of its recommendations.
With regard to existing survivability standards, I am publishing today lists of the roll on/roll off ferries currently serving United Kingdom ports. These show whether they meet the survivability standards introduced by the IMO in 1990—referred to as SOLAS 90—or when they need to be modified in accordance with the north-west European ferry stability agreement, which applies SOLAS 90 to roll on/roll off ferries built before 1990. A copy of the lists and an explanatory note have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on damage stability standards for ferries operating in UK waters, and what he

said on transverse bulkheads, which is important, but is he aware that the concerns of the British public about ferry safety go much wider than the narrow range of issues that he has touched on today, in particular, public access to information in a readily understood form on ships, safety standards, crew competence on board ship, the proper enforcement of safety standards, and assurances on evacuation arrangements? Will he now ensure that the travelling public are able to use that information and to make informed choices regarding the ship on which they wish to travel? Will he now urge the ferry operators to link individual ferries to timetables, so that the public have some control over the safety of the ferries on which they travel?
Regarding the list that the Secretary of State is publishing today—we welcome it—of passenger ferries not meeting SOLAS 90 standards, will he confirm that 27 of those vessels will still not have to comply for another nine years and that a further 18 will not have to comply for another 12 years? What action is he taking to secure international agreement or, if necessary, to act unilaterally to reduce the still unacceptably long delays in implementation?
Is not it clear anyway that the SOLAS standards, even under the revised 1993 agreement, are inadequate when they are concerned only to ensure stability against waves of up to 1.5 m in height? Is not that much too low and does not it mean that SOLAS standards will be ineffective in the rougher seas when they are most needed?
How can the public have confidence in the Government's commitment to safety on ferries when the right hon. Gentleman, in a letter of 21 December 1994, a copy of which I have here, said that he was postponing delegating to classification societies the responsibility for hull and machinery surveys on ro-ro ferries and other passenger ships because of
the widespread perception in the marine insurance industry and elsewhere that safety standards would deteriorate",
yet he still proposes to go ahead with that later this year?
Is not it deeply cynical to put off the privatisation exercise temporarily because of the Estonia, yet still proceed with it now when it is widely regarded as dangerous, and even the Minister of State on 7 December last year has roundly condemned many classification societies as incompetent or worse?
How, equally, can the right hon. Gentleman say that he has an overriding commitment to ferry safety when at the same time he has cut the staffing of his Department's Marine Safety Agency by 15 per cent. in the past year?
The right hon. Gentleman omitted today the human factors which are known to be instrumental in some 85 per cent. of all marine casualties. Will he accept that his announcement today will be of limited use unless skilled and experienced British officers are available to maintain high operational standards in the ro-ro ferry sector?
Will the right hon. Gentleman further accept that that is now severely threatened by the catastrophic decline in United Kingdom seafarer training levels? Is he aware that while in 1981 some 5,200 cadets began training, the number today has dropped by no less than 90 per cent? What further action will he now take to restore training to the much higher levels that are still needed?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that, with the growing use of low-cost non-EU crews on UK-registered ships, it is vital that communication with


crew and passengers in an emergency is immediately understood? Will he now withdraw his proposal to end the requirement that UK-registered ships must have British officers?
Increased competition and the growing presence of flag-of-convenience services present a real threat to the future of cross-channel safety. The right hon. Gentleman's commitment to safety will be judged not merely by his statement today, but by whether he is prepared to override his and his party's instincts for deregulation and privatisation which are so inimical to ferry safety.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to my statement—I think—and the joint view that we have taken in welcoming the result of the research that I commissioned, the fact that it has been forwarded to the panel of experts and that it is now being taken seriously along with others as the industry operators and Governments together turn to considering whether further steps can appropriately be taken to enhance even further the already high standards of ferry safety. I am glad that we agree on that.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about concerns on safety. They are understandable concerns. It is part of the responsibility of the House not unnecessarily to stoke up inappropriate or ill-founded concerns about safety and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman that he fell some way short of doing that. I agree with him that it is important for the public to have easy access to information. I note his suggestion that ferries should be linked to timetables, and I will convey it to the operators.
As I have said at the Dispatch Box before, we should have liked agreements on SOLAS 90 to be implemented earlier than was possible. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the International Maritime Organisation wanted a SOLAS 92; we rejected that, and consequently became involved in the north-west European ferry stability agreement. We are seeking to build on that. We shall continue to press for implementation of the highest possible safety standards, as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned classification societies. He does not appear to understand that 80 per cent. of the inspection work to which he refers has already been done by classification societies; we are talking about adding another 5 per cent. of the total work. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: he must decide whether he considers the continuing debate about ro-ro ferry safety to be a legitimate part of our overall aim of establishing the greatest possible ferry safety. I believe that it is, and until I am satisfied that the discussion has been concluded we shall retain it as part of our general goal.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the Marine Safety Agency. He has been told before—as have his hon. Friends—that the number of inspections will not be reduced, and that there has been no reduction in the work done by front-line inspectors. I am seeking to establish as much common ground as possible, however. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of crew communication, and on that we are as one.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important to stress that 50 million passenger journeys a year are made safely in and out of British ports on roll-on/roll-off ferries. That is a remarkable record, and a

tribute to the current safety standards. It is, however, no cause for complacency—which is why I asked for the research to be done, and why we shall apply it vigorously.

Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Transport has just begun an inquiry into cross-channel safety? I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said about the large number of journeys taken each year in conditions that show that ferries must be very safe; but is it not welcome that the possibility of greater chances of survival has resulted from the research?
What will my right hon. Friend do in the IMO about the new research? It would obviously be better for him to work within the IMO if that is possible, but if it proves impossible—as happened with SOLAS 90—will he arrange something along the lines of the north-west European ferry stability agreement, so that we can have higher standards in the United Kingdom even if we cannot secure them through international organisations?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said; I agree with all of it. I was aware of the Select Committee inquiry, and look forward to giving evidence in due course.
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said about the new research, and for the compliment that he paid it in bringing it to the House's attention as soon as possible. That was, I think, the right thing to do. I assure him that we shall try to apply the lessons of the research and other information through the IMO: I agree that that would be the best way in which to proceed. I hope that we shall succeed, but I do not rule out taking the alternative steps that he mentioned should that prove necessary—which I hope that it will not.

Mr. Paul Tyler: This is a timely statement, given that great many of our fellow citizens will be using ro-ro ferries during the Easter holidays. I am glad that the Secretary of State has come to the House now. There are obviously some important questions. Given that there was a seven-year delay between the tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise at Zeebrugge and that of the Estonia, can the Secretary of State assure us that the lessons that were learnt from the previous incident were available by the time of the Estonia? Why does it seem that no modifications had been made to prevent a second tragedy?
More importantly, and along the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon, can the people using the ferries over the next few weeks be assured that the lessons that have been learnt from both episodes are sufficient to ensure that design and operation in future, when the modifications have been made, or the withdrawal of ferries to which the modification cannot be applied, will provide reassurance of complete safety? Survivability is extremely important and the schedules that the Secretary of State has made available to us show that it will be a long time before some ferries meet those standards.
Finally, how many ferries have changed their flags since SOLAS 90 was introduced? The right hon. Gentleman refers to a number in his explanatory notes, but no numbers are given. Clearly, it is a matter of great concern not just to people in the industry, but to people who use ferries generally.

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his welcome, which I appreciate. All the


recommendations that arose out of the inquiry into the Herald of Free Enterprise seven years ago were implemented and that has been a major source of reassurance in the intervening seven years. There is no final report yet on what happened to the Estonia. It would appear that the bow doors were torn off and there was damage to the internal bulkhead, but at the moment there is no definitive report, and we await that.
The hon. Gentleman and I share a common concern to reassure people, while not being complacent, that the Marine Safety Agency has responsibility for the safe passage of marine traffic in and out of our ports. It is satisfied with the standards and advises me that it has no concerns. I reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to support. The number of journeys in and out of British ports every year is a reflection of the high standards that we enjoy. That is no reason to seek to prevent those standards being enhanced, particularly if it can be done on an international basis, and that is what we shall seek to do.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend secretly share my disappointment at the somewhat grudging response to his statement this afternoon? It must be right to ensure that matters relating to the basic structure of roll on/roll off ferries are attended to ahead of almost anything else, however important, when further research and discussion takes place.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and encouragement. I shall resist the temptation other than to say that I am grateful for the support that has been forthcoming across the Chamber.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Since the Secretary of State is doing such a good job of throwing out all the politically difficult questions from his Department before the next general election, will he go even further than he has gone today and announce firmly that the Marine Safety Agency, which has responsibility for bow inspection and the maintenance of a high level of safety on all the ferries going in and out of the country will not have its staff cut and might even consider moving its office from that well-known seaside resort of Orpington to somewhere slightly nearer the coast? Will he ensure that in future not only will there be tight controls over any operating ferry that comes into the country, but that if the timetable for the implementation of the changes that he has mentioned this afternoon becomes too elongated, he will take direct action and not wait for other people?

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Lady and I interpret at least the first half of her question as a welcome for my announcement. She has maintained a consistent interest in these matters, although I am having difficulty persuading her of the consistency and truthfulness of the answers that I regularly and similarly give her. I assure here that the number of inspections will be maintained and the front-line staff involved in surveys and inspections will be retained. I hope that that will encourage her along the road towards accepting what I am telling her.
On the hon. Lady's last point, I reiterate what I said in my statement—that it was as a consequence of work that I asked the Marine Safety Agency to do, which culminated last November in my inspecting bow doors, that I asked the

agency to do further work. It has reported on the improvements that transverse bulkheads can bring to survivability in certain circumstances. I took that seriously enough to bring it to the House, so the hon. Lady should not underestimate my determination to move forward.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the Scandinavian ferry disaster, where insufficiently clear instructions were given to the passengers when there was a fire on board? Will the transverse bulkheads hinder exit procedures? Will he ensure that the advice given by the Consumers Association about checking that passengers actually understand the safety announcements is acted upon?

Dr. Mawhinney: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have welcomed and accepted the recommendations of the panel of experts, some of which dealt with evacuation procedures. We are happy to accept them.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that current regulations do not include maximum hours for officers and crew on duty for normal purposes? Why is that? Will he also confirm that, as a result of his announcement, at some stage in the future no ship operating on a British ro-ro service will be without transverse bulkheads on its main car deck? If so, will he tell us in what year he expects that to be in operation?

Dr. Mawhinney: As I made clear in my statement, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's last question. I made it abundantly clear that we need to have a series of discussions and investigations and that further work needs to be done.
What I have brought to the House today is, in effect, a statement of principle. Work has been done that has shown that enhanced survivability can result from the putting in place of transverse bulkheads. We now need to work with other Governments, with operators and with agencies—in particular, the International Maritime Organisation—to give effect to the added safety that the bulkheads or equivalent measures would achieve. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I will push forward in that direction with vigour, as will my officials in discussions within the IMO and within the panel of experts. We will not allow others to deflect us from putting in place standards that will even further enhance public confidence in the safety of ro-ro ferries.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I commend my right hon. Friend on his measured response to recent tragedies, especially in the light of the many safe ferry journeys from British ports every year. What is the Government's attitude likely to be if, in due course, the IMO fails to recommend the fitting of transverse bulkheads?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said earlier, it would be far better to reach agreement within the IMO. He then put to me the possibility that that might not happen and asked whether we would then consider something equivalent to a north-west European agreement—and I will. If that offers the sort of reassurance that the House seeks, I am happy to give it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman said that there were 50,000 safe journeys. What


does that mean? Fifty thousand people walk the streets of Chesterfield every day and get home safely. It does not mean anything. It needs only one ferry to go down and 200 or 300 people will lose their lives.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one fellow, for certain, will be clapping his hands at what the right hon. Gentleman has said today—Jeffrey Sterling, the head of P and O? He could have been required to insert transverse bulkheads in all his ferries, had this Minister had the guts to do that to achieve proper safety measures. The reason why this Minister has done nothing today but waffle is that Jeffrey Sterling puts money into the Tory party.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the House is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's typically generous and kind-hearted welcome to what is an important statement on ferry safety. With a little more attention, he would have heard that there are 50 million—not 50,000—safe passenger journeys a year in and out of UK ports. He will be interested to know that it was, as he contemptuously puts it, this Minister who commissioned the research, and who brought its results for the first time to the House, which his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and other hon. Members welcomed. The House will draw its own conclusion, but it should not be surprised that, yet again, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is marching in the opposite direction from everyone else.

Mr. David Shaw: Nineteen million people passed through Dover port last year using Dover's ferries, and they had good and safe journeys. May I declare my interest as someone who went on our ferries last week? We have the latest television monitoring system, early warning lights on bow doors, and better-designed bow doors than any other ferry system and service in the world. Our ferry systems include bow doors that have been designed very differently from those on the Estonia.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on these matters. As I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the measures that he mentioned and that are in place were precisely those included in the recommendations of the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry. All were accepted and put in place. That is the sort of reassurance that the travelling public have a right to expect. I hope that they will feel that today's statement will add to that sense of reassurance.

Mr. Nick Ainger: May I add my grudging welcome to the Secretary of State's announcement? I say "grudging" because, after all, the European Gateway sank because of the free surface effect, which could be combatted only by transverse bulkheads. The Herald of Free Enterprise sank because of that effect, which could have been combatted only by such bulkheads.
The survivors and families of the people who died on the Herald of Free Enterprise will be asking why it has taken until now for the announcement to be made. May I ask a further question, in which the hon Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) might be interested? SOLAS 90 gives survivability of only 30 minutes in 1.5 m waves and search and rescue helicopters require one hour to get into the Dover straits from the British mainland. Will the Secretary of State reconsider that issue in particular,

because it is obvious that, if a major problem arose in the Dover straits, insufficient search and rescue cover exists? The Secretary of State's Department agreed about that.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome—I shall leave out the word "grudging". He asks a reasonable question. I am advised that, during the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry, transverse bulkheads were examined, but the conclusion was reached that they would not be of additional safety value. I challenged that by asking for further research to be undertaken and I have brought that research to the House. I attach importance to it—I hope that that is clear from my statement and from the way in which I have answered questions.
Because I attach importance to that research, I intend to ensure that it is progressed in such a way that, in due course, the hon. Gentleman will be less grudging in his welcome. He is right to say that the Dover straits are the busiest waterway in the world. He is not right, however, to say that helicopter cover from both sides of the straits is inadequate.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the Dover straits, which he has just said are the busiest crossing point, are heavy with other traffic using that part of the English channel? Does he accept that obviously inherent dangers exist there? There is increased pressure because of competition from the channel tunnel. Will he make it clear that the Government intend to ensure that passenger safety comes before quick turnround times and other factors in that competitive industry, that safety will be the No. 1 priority, and that ships are made absolutely safe?

Dr. Mawhinney: Yes.

Mr. Roy Beggs: We in Larne have run second to Dover. Last year, 2 million people travelled through the port from the Scottish ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan. To give confidence to the growing number of people who travel as tourists into Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State give a further assurance that the highest standards are being maintained on cross-channel ferries, and that the inspection level will not be diminished? I commend him on the action that he has taken to date, and ask him robustly to persuade the people who should be persuaded on early implementation of the research's conclusions.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall continue to be as robust as he would wish and, perhaps, even expect me to be in the circumstances. I pay tribute to the ferry safety levels around the coast, including ferries that sail in and out of Larne. As he will know, because he generously accompanied me, I had the pleasure of visiting Larne port just a few weeks ago.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Secretary of State read the reports by the Consumers Association, the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and the Institute of Marine Engineers, which all say that the SOLAS 90 standards are not the highest but the bare minimum standards agreed as a compromise at the International Maritime Organisation? Out of its 150 members, only 15 have competent marine architects. Most of those run under flags of convenience, where the interest is in profit, not safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) is right. SOLAS 90 would have applied to the Estonia, but that sank like a stone. Although engineering differences exist between many ferries, the same principles apply to them all. All the disasters have occurred through a combination of human error and fundamentally unsafe and unstable design. As long as 20 years ago, the Government and the industry were told that that design would cause disasters. We have had disaster management.
Terrible events have occurred and solutions have come years after. After reading those reports, I assure you, Madam Speaker, that my family will not be travelling on any roll on/roll off ferry. The Secretary of State talks of people being alarmist, but does he think that the relatives of the people who died in the Scandinavian Star, the Estonia and the Herald of Free Enterprise would have appreciated a little alarm from parliamentarians before those terrible tragedies took place?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will speak for himself. He has done so and he does not take many hon. Members with him. He is certainly not taking any Conservative Member with him as he indefensibly tries to whip up scare stories that are designed to put people off a ferry service that is among the safest in the world. I say, I think for the fourth time, that there is no basis for complacency. That is why I asked for the work to be done, why I brought the results to the House for the first time, and why we will, as I said to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), continue to pursue that robustly. I remind the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that, if it had not been for the UK Government, there would not have been a SOLAS 90.

Points of order

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning on the radio and on television, it was widely reported that a statement would be made to the House on the future of dental services. We now find that a statement has been made by way of written answer. It refers to the reduction in dental treatment available on the national health service, to a system for charging to be renegotiated locally, and to a system of charges for community dental services to be introduced. Is not it appalling that, on a matter as important as that, and about which we have been waiting to hear for many months, no statement has been made in the House? Could you clarify whether anything in the House's rules prevents a Minister who has answered a private notice question from coming back here to make a statement on such a matter?

Madam Speaker: Certainly, if any Secretary of State sought to return to the House to make a statement, I would be here to hear it but I have not been informed that such a statement is to be made today. As the House knows, it is up to the Secretary of State when making such a statement to determine whether it is to be done by means of written answer or orally at the Dispatch Box. I have no influence or authority over that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall making a statement to the House prior to the Second Reading debate on the Disability Discrimination Bill in which you said in effect that there were no procedural problems in progress on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. However, some procedural peculiarities seem to have developed in Committees dealing with the Bills that are being debated before that Bill. I am thinking especially of Standing Committee C which is debating the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill and where debates are being strung out by 50 amendments having been tabled on a measure about which there is no dispute. In any event, it was initially a Government Bill although promoted by a private Member. In the circumstances, would it be possible for you to call for reports from the Chairman and Clerks of the appropriate Committees in order to discover what is happening?

Madam Speaker: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to tedious and lengthy or filibustering remarks in particular Committees, although I am sure that he is not making such allegations. However, if that is the case, I am sure that the Chairmen of the appropriate Committees will report to me. It is not for me to ask them to do so; they will report to me anything untoward takes place.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret having to return for the third time in as many weeks to a matter that I understand has also been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and others. The problem is that we are not getting answers to questions that we table to Ministers; Ministers are denying us information, refusing to make statements in the House and giving only written answers. The Government are becoming less and less accountable to Parliament and the


public. Democracy is approaching crisis. What are we going to do? I know that in your rulings you say that it is not within your power to do anything about these matters, but who is listening?

Madam Speaker: I am listening. The hon. Gentleman can sit down. He is making a great many wide allegations, but I take the matter seriously. I have already examined one example provided by a Back Bencher but there was no substance in it whatsoever. If the hon. Gentleman will give me examples of his not receiving information when that information was available, I shall certainly look into the matter as thoroughly as I have done in other cases.

Discrimination (Genetic Information)

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent discrimination against people who have had genetic tests or have a genetic predisposition to disease, and to guarantee the privacy of such persons.
I bring this issue to the attention of the House to highlight some of the problems faced by people who have a genetic predisposition to disease although they have not as yet developed any symptoms of the disease.
Last week, we had a useful discussion on an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Bill, which was moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I supported the amendment, which would have given people with genetic predisposition to disease the same protection as those who are already disabled. I am sorry that the House did not support that amendment, but I understand that some right hon. and hon. Members took a contrary view because they felt that the issue was a great deal more complex than suggested by the amendment. However, I was encouraged by the Minister's comment to the effect that the Government's door would be open for further discussions. That was one of the most encouraging remarks made during that debate.
I am sure that the Minister and others will be looking carefully at the recommendations of the report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology into human genetics, which will be published in the summer. That inquiry will encompass much wider issues than those covered in the Bill. However, I hope that the Bill will encourage dialogue between the Association of British Insurers and the Genetics Interest Group so that some sensible proposals can be agreed to deal with the difficult ethical, legal and social issues relating to the rapid advances taking place in human genetics.
The Genetics Interest Group has brought to my attention a number of cases involving people with genetic disease who have been discriminated against by employers, building societies and insurance companies. This sometimes happens because of ignorance, as the following case shows.
A senior town planning officer with a London borough developed sickle cell disease. It is a hereditary blood condition that can cause painful crises which result in hospitalisation. The crises are exacerbated by cold, damp and stress so it is important that those affected have adequate housing and secure financial arrangements.
In his first post, the officer was able to join the local government superannuation scheme without any difficulties. Three years later, he was offered promotion with another London borough. Getting the job was not a problem, but continuing his membership of the superannuation scheme caused major problems, despite the fact that he was already a member and had been for three years. Continuing his membership required several additional medical examinations and took six months to resolve. That is inexcusable for someone who is already part of a superannuation scheme and shows that the medical officer did not really understand the problem.
Another man was employed as a project manager in the oil and gas industry. One of the benefits that came with this employment was a free subscription to a private medical insurance scheme. He became ill and had to take


a significant amount of time off work. He was referred to a Harley street specialist who determined that he had haemochromatosis.
The specialist, the tests and the week in hospital were all paid for by the private medical insurance scheme. However, following a further medical examination, the private medical insurer wrote to say that, as the man now had a medical condition that required continuing treatment, the company would not continue the insurance. From responses to various letters that he has written to private medical insurers, the man understands that he can obtain medical insurance but that such insurance will exclude cover for haemochromatosis and related conditions. When he asked what the related conditions were, he could not obtain an answer.
Like me, that man finds it unacceptable that insurers can throw someone out of a scheme and says that he hopes that it will one day be illegal to exclude people who become ill after joining a scheme. He also believes that insurers should be forced to give their definition of related conditions because what worries him is that whenever he tries to claim on his health insurance the insurers will claim that the condition is related to haemochromatosis.
At the moment, no insurance company in the United Kingdom requires people to take a genetic test before they can be insured, but I am worried that market pressures will lead to such a requirement as more tests become available. For example, if a rogue insurance company wanted to offer low insurance premiums for health cover, it could do so by requiring people to take a genetic test and then refusing cover for those who were found to be predisposed to genetic disease. The pressure on other companies to follow suit would be great, and it is of the utmost importance that it should be illegal for insurers to require people to take a test, even if they have a strong family link with a particular disease.
In many cases, there is at present no advantage to an individual in knowing that he is predisposed to some diseases as they are diseases for which there is no cure, although that may change in the future. As medical research advances, it is possible that genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis will be fully treatable by gene therapy, but, at present, I would not want to know if I were likely to contract Alzheimer's disease as there would be absolutely nothing I could do about it. However, I would like to know whether I have an inherited trait to hyper-cholesterolaemia which may cause me to have a heart attack or stroke. If this is the case, with a low-fat diet and plenty of exercise, I can drastically reduce the risk of contracting this disease.
It is beneficial for individuals to know about their predisposition for reasons other than the one I have just mentioned. A case has been quoted to me of a family whose child has tuberous sclerosis. This disease can affect any part of the body with small tumours which can appear from birth. In some cases, the symptoms are so mild that people do not realise that they have the disease until it affects them in mid-life. If a child is found to have the disease, it is certainly advantageous for the parents to be screened because they can then make an informed decision about whether to have any further children should one of them be found to carry the gene.
In some cases, it is beneficial for people to have genetic tests, but it can be disadvantageous to have a genetic test for insurance purposes. Even if the insurance company does not require a person to have a test, it is commonplace for companies to ask applicants to disclose the results of any medical test that they have had. If people feel that they will be discriminated against if they have had a positive test, they will probably make the decision not to have a test or at least to defer it. This can be harmful to them if they do not make the necessary changes to life style which would reduce the risk of becoming ill and it might be harmful to their future children if they are carriers of unsuspected diseases.
It would, therefore, be helpful to require insurance companies to allow people to keep the results of any medical tests completely private. However, the insurance companies have made an important point, which is that if someone has a test which confirms that they are virtually certain to become ill, it will be beneficial for them to take out millions of pounds' worth of insurance as they cannot lose by it. This would be unfair as it would mean that individuals would benefit from prior knowledge. It is rather like betting on a horse race when the result is fully known. I believe, however, that it is appropriate that those people should be able to get at least some protection against risks that they acquire through no fault of their own. There is a strong case, therefore, for limiting the total amount of insurance money paid out to a single individual in the case of a genetic disease and for ensuring that those costs do not fall too heavily on a single insurance company.
There are many possible ways in which to deal with the problem. The one I propose is as follows. I suggest that the costs should be borne collectively by the policyholders of all insurance companies. In this case, a levy would be imposed on all companies that cover a particular disease and the proceeds of the levy would be used to pay out to those who ultimately contracted the disease. That would protect individuals and individual companies which might, by chance, find that they had insured a disproportionately large number of high-risk individuals. There is a direct analogy with car insurance. Car insurers maintain a financial pool which they use to compensate any of their members who are involved in car accidents with people who are, illegally, not insured.
Under the arrangement I propose, people with a predisposition, as a group, would receive a subsidy from those with no such predisposition. A strong case can be made for imposing a ceiling—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Janet Anderson, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Ms Judith Church, Mr. Alan Howarth, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Alan Williams, Ms Margaret Hodge and Ms Tessa Jowell.

DISCRIMINATION (GENETIC INFORMATION)

Mrs. Anne Campbell accordingly presented a Bill to prevent discrimination against people who have had genetic tests or have a genetic predisposition to disease, and to guarantee the privacy of such persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 April, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

Orders of the Day — Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

'. Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Licensing Act 1964 after Schedule 14) shall have effect in relation to the rights of bar workers in relation to work during the previously restricted hours on Sundays.'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 1, a new schedule:—'Schedule—

SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED IN THE LICENSING ACT 1964 AFTER SCHEDULE 14

SCHEDULE 15

RIGHTS OF BAR WORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY WORKING

General Interpretation

1.—(1) In this Schedule, except where a contrary intention appears—
the 1978 Act" means the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;
bar work" means work in licensed premises or clubs licensed to sell intoxicating liquor mainly or wholly involving the serving of drinks to customers or the performance of ancillary tasks;
bar worker" means a person employed to do bar work, and includes a person employed as a manager of licensed premises or the tenant of licensed premises;
club" has the same meaning as in Part II of this Act;
the commencement date" means the day on which this Schedule comes into force;
dismissal" has the same meaning as in Part V of the 1978 Act;
licensed premises" has the same meaning as in section 60 of this Act;
notice period", in relation to an opting-out notice, has the meaning given by paragraph 6 below;
opted-out", in relation to a bar worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5 below;
opting-in notice" has the meaning given by paragraph 3(2) below;
opting-out notice" has the meaning given by paragraph 4(3) below;
the previously restricted hours" means the hours from 3pm to 7pm on Sundays;
protected", in relation to a bar worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 below.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the following provisions of the 1978 Act—
section 151(1) and (2) (computation of period of continuous employment), and
section 153 (general interpretation),
shall have effect for the purposes of this Schedule as they have effect for the purposes of that Act.

(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, section 151(2) of the 1978 Act shall have effect with the omission of the words from "but" onwards and Schedule 13 to that Act shall have effect with the following modifications—

(a) in paragraph 1 for the words "paragraphs 3 to 12" there shall be substituted "paragraph 4 or paragraphs 9 to 12",
(b) paragraph 3 and paragraphs 5 to 8 shall be omitted, and
(c) in paragraph 4 the words "which normally involves employment for sixteen hours or more weekly" shall be omitted.

(4) Where section 56 of the 1978 Act (failure to permit women to return to work after childbirth treated as dismissal) applies to an employee who was employed as a bar worker under her contract of employment on the last day of her maternity leave period, she shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as if she had been employed as a bar worker on the day with effect from which she is treated as dismissed under that section.

Meaning of "protected bar worker"

2.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 below, a bar worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as "protected" if, and only if, sub-paragraph (2) or (3) below applies to him.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies to any bar worker if—

(a) on the day before the commencement date, he was employed as a bar worker,
(b) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with that day and ending with the appropriate date, and
(c) throughout that period, or throughout every part of it during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a bar worker.

(3) This sub-paragraph applies to any bar worker whose contract of employment is such that under it he—

(a) is not, and may not be required to work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours, and
(b) could not be so required even if the provisions of this Schedule were disregarded.

(4) In sub-paragraph (2)(c) above "the appropriate date" means—

(a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,
(b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,
(c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 12 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into,
(d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work,
(e) in relation to paragraph 14 below, any time in relation to which the contract is to be enforced, and
(f) in relation to paragraph 15 below, the end of the period in respect of which the remuneration is paid or the benefit accrues.

(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(a) above, "the effective date of termination", in any case falling within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.

(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) above—

(a) where an act extends over a period, the "date of the act" means the first day of the period, and
(b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.

(7) Where on the day before the commencement date an employee's relations with his employer have ceased to be governed by a contract of employment, he shall be regarded as satisfying the conditions in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b) above if—



(a) that day falls in a week which counts as a period of employment with that employer under paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (absence from work because of sickness, pregnancy etc.) or under regulations made under paragraph 20 of that Schedule (reinstatement or re-engagement of dismissed employee), and
(b) on the last day before the commencement date on which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, the employee was a bar worker and was not employed to work only on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

3.—(1) A bar worker is not a protected bar worker if—

(a) on or after the commencement date, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and
(b) after giving that notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

(2) In this Schedule "opting-in notice" means a written notice, signed and dated by the bar worker, in which the bar worker expressly states that he wishes to work on Sunday or that he does not object to Sunday working during the previously restricted hours.

Notice of objection to Sunday working

4.—(1) This paragraph applies to any bar worker who, under his contract of employment—

(a) is or may be required to work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours (whether or not as a result of previously giving an opting-in notice), but
(b) is not employed to work only on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

(2) A bar worker to whom this paragraph applies may at any time give his employer written notice, signed and dated by the bar worker, to the effect that the bar worker objects to Sunday working during the previously restricted hours.

(3) In this Schedule "opting-out notice" means a notice given under sub-paragraph (2) above by a bar worker to whom this paragraph applies.

Meaning of "opted-out bar worker"

5.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, a bar worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as "opted-out" if, and only if—

(a) he has given his employer an opting-out notice,
(b) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with the day on which the notice was given and ending with the appropriate date, and
(c) throughout that period, or throughout every part of its during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a bar worker.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the appropriate date" means—

(a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,
(b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,
(c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 13 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into, and
(d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, "the effective date of termination", in any case falling within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above—

(a) where an act extends over a period, the "date of the act" means the first day of the period, and
(b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no

such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.

(5) A bar worker is not an opted-out bar worker if—

(a) after giving the opting-out notice concerned, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and
(b) after giving that opting-in notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

Meaning of "notice period"

6. In this Schedule "notice period", in relation to an opted-out bar worker, means, subject to paragraph 11(2) below, the period of three months beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given.

Right not to be dismissed for refusing Sunday work during the previously restricted hours

7.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the dismissal of a protected or opted-out bar worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was the the bar worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out bar worker where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal was that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to do bar work on any Sunday or Sundays during the previously restricted hours falling before the end of the notice period.

(3) The dismissal of a bar worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the bar worker gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to the employer.

(4) Section 142 of the 1978 Act (contracts for a fixed term) shall not exclude the application of section 54 of that Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) in relation to any dismissal which is unfair by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) above.

8.—(1) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a protected or opted-out bar worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

(a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and
(b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(1) above,

then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out bar worker where the reason (or principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(2) above.

(3) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a bar worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

(a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and
(b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(3) above,

then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.

Exclusion of secion 64(1) of Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

9. Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) shall apply to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above regardless of the period for which


the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly section 64(1) of that Act (which provides a qualifying period and an upper age limit) shall not apply to such a dismissal.

Right not to suffer detriment for refusing Sunday work during the previous restricted hours

10.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) below, a protected or opted-out bar worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the bar worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to anything done in relation to an opted-out bar worker on the ground that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to do bar work on any Sunday or Sundays during the previously restricted hours falling before the end of the notice period.

(3) Subject to sub-paragaph (4) below, a bar worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that he gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to his employer.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph a bar worker who does not work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by—

(a) any failure to pay remuneration in respect of bar work on a Sunday which he has not done,
(b) any failure to provide him with any other benefit, where that failure results from the application, in relation to a Sunday on which the employee has not done bar work, of a contractual term under which the extent of that benefit varies according to the number of hours worked by the employee or the remuneration of the employee, or
(c) any failure to provide him with any work, remuneration or other benefit which by virtue of paragraph 14 or 15 below the employer is not obliged to provide.

(6) Where an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to any one or more employees who are protected or opted-out bar workers or who, under their contracts of employment, are not obliged to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours, if they agree to do bar work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday during the previously restricted hours—

(a) an employee to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this paragraph as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to make the offer to him or to pay him that sum, and
(b) an employee who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for those purposes as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay him that sum.

Employer's duty to give explanatory statement

11.—(1) Where a person becomes a bar worker to whom paragraph 4 above applies, his employer shall, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which that person becomes such a bar worker, give him a written statement in the prescribed form.

(2) If—

(a) an employer fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in relation to any bar worker, and
(b) the bar worker, on giving the employer an opting-out notice, becomes an opted-out bar worker,

paragraph 6 above shall have effect, in relation to the bar worker, with the substitution for "three months" of "one month".

(3) An employer shall not be regarded as failing to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in any case where, before the end of the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, a bar worker has given him an opting-out notice.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the prescribed form is as follows—

STATUTORY RIGHTS IN RELATION TO SUNDAY BAR WORK

You have become employed under a contract of employment under which you are or can be required to do Sunday bar work during previously restricted hours, that is to say, work serving drinks on a Sunday between the hours of 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.

However, if you wish, you can give a notice, as described in the next paragraph, to your employer and you will then have the right not to do Sunday work during previously restricted hours once three months have passed from the date on which you gave the notice.

Your notice must—

be in writing;

be signed and dated by you;

say you object to doing Sunday bar work during previously restricted hours.

For three months after you give the notice, your employer can still require you to do all the Sunday bar work your contract provides for. After the three month period has ended, you have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal if, because of your refusal to do Sunday bar work during the previously restricted hours, your employer—

dismisses you, or

does something else detrimental to you, for example, failing to promote you.

Once you have the rights described, you can surrender them only by giving your employer a further notice, signed and dated by you, saying that you wish to do Sunday bar work during the previously restricted hours or that you do not object to doing such work and then agreeing with your employer to do such work on Sundays or on a particular Sunday."

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the prescribed form set out in sub-paragraph (4) above.

(6) An order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Effect of rights on contracts of employment

12.—(1) Any contract of employment under which a bar worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(2)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date is unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the bar worker to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours on or after the commencement date, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the bar worker with bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours on or after that date.

(2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into after the commencement date between a protected bar worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it

(a) requires the bar worker to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the bar worker with bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

(3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, a protected bar worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(b) above (and so ceases to be protected), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.

(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a protected bar worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not a protected bar worker for the purpose of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, is a protected bar worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (maternity).

13.—(1) Where a bar worker gives his employer an opting-out notice, the contract of employment under which he was employed immediately before he gave that notice becomes unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the bar worker to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours after the end of the notice period, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the bar worker with bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours after the end of that period.

(2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into between an opted-out bar worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the bar worker to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours after the end of the notice period, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the bar worker with bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours after the end of that period.

(3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, an opted-out bar worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 5(5)(b) above (and so ceases to be opted-out), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.

(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to an opted-out bar worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not an opted-out bar worker for the purposes of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, had given her employer an opting-out notice before that time and is an opted-out bar worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (maternity).

14. If—

(a) under the contract of employment under which a bar worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(2)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the employer is, or may be, required to provide him with bar work for a specified number of hours each week,
(b) under that contract, the bar worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours before the commencement date, and
(c) the bar worker has done bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so,

then, so long as the bar worker remains a protected bar worker, that contract shall not be regarded as requiring the employer to provide him with bar work on weekdays in excess of the hours normally worked by the bar worker on weekdays before he ceased to do bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

15.—(1) If—

(a) under the contract of employment under which a bar worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(2)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the bar worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours before that date,
(b) the bar worker has done bar work on Sunday during the previously restricted hours in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so, and
(c) it is not apparent from the contract what part of the remuneration payable, or of any other benefit accruing, to the bar worker was intended to be attributable to such work,

then, so long as the bar worker remains a protected bar worker, that contract shall be regarded as enabling the employer to reduce the amount of remuneration paid, or the extent of the other benefit provided, to the bar worker in respect of any period by the proportion which the hours of bar work which (apart from this Schedule) the bar worker could have been required to do on Sunday during the previously restricted hours in the period (in this paragraph

referred to as "the contractual Sunday hours") bears to the aggregate of those hours and the hours of work actually done by the bar worker in the period.

(2) Where, under the contract of employment, the hours of work actually done on weekdays in any period would be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours, they shall be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

Proceedings for contravention of paragraph 10

16. Sections 22B and 22C of the 1978 Act (which relate to proceedings brought by an employee on the ground that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 22A of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference in section 22B(1) to section 22A included a reference to paragraph 10 above.

Restrictions on contracting out of Schedule

17.—(1) Any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be void in so far as it purports—

(a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Schedule, or
(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to an industrial tribunal by virtue of any provision of this Schedule.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to an agreement to refrain from presenting or continuing with a complaint where—

(a) a conciliation officer has taken action under section 133(2) or (3) of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation) or under section 134(1), (2) or (3) (conciliation in case of unfair dismissal) of that Act, or
(b) the conditions regulating comprise agreements under the 1978 Act (as set out in action 140(3) of that Act) are satisfied in relation to the agreement.

Transitional modifications relating to maternity cases

18.—(1) Where—

(a) an employee exercises a right to return to work under Part III of the 1978 Act (maternity), and
(b) because amendments of that Part made by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 (in this paragraph referred to as "the 1993 Act") do not have effect in her case, her right is a right to return to work in the job in which she was employed under the original contract of employment,

the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect subject to the modifications in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.

(2) In paragraph 1(4), for "her contract of employment on the last day of her maternity leave period" there shall be substituted "her original contract of employment".

(3) In paragraph 2(7), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
(b) under her original contract of employment, she was a bar worker and was not employed to work only on Sunday during the previously restricted hours.

(4) In this paragraph and in paragraphs 1 and 2 above as modified by sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above, "original contract of employment" has the meaning given by section 153(1) of the 1978 Act as originally enacted.

Dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right

19. In section 60A of the 1978 Act (dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right) in subsection (4)(a), after "or" at the end of paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
(ia) Schedule 15 to the Licensing Act 1964, or

Dismissal procedures agreements

20. In section 65 of the 1978 Act (exclusion in respect of dismissal procedures agreement) in subsection (4), after "section 60A(1)" there shall be inserted "or the right conferred by paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 15 to the Licensing Act 1964".

Conciliation

21. In section 133 of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation officers) after "or" at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
(aa) arising out of a contravention or alleged contravention, of paragraph 10 of Schedule 15 to the Licensing Act 1964; or"

Application of certain other provisions of 1978 Act

22. In the following provisions of the 1978 Act—

section 129 (remedy for infringement of certain rights),

section 141(2) (employee ordinarily working outside Great Britain, and

section 150 and Schedule 12 (death of employee or employer), any reference to Part II of the 1978 Act includes a reference to paragraph 10 of this Schedule."

Mr. Howarth: We debated this issue on Second Reading and in Committee, although not in connection with the new clause. The new clause would introduce a new schedule to the Licensing Act 1964, which would be inserted between schedules 14 and 15, which refer to the rights of bar workers in respect of Sunday working. The purpose behind the new clause is a matter of conviction for my hon. Friends and me—the belief that workers who are expected to work on a Sunday and who will be covered by the changed arrangements implicit in the Bill should be protected from being forced to work on a Sunday by the Bill, or, more importantly, by their employers.
The new clause defines a protected bar worker, so that such workers can be included, or in some cases excluded, from our proposed new schedule. We also provide an objection procedure whereby those who are covered by the new arrangements have the opportunity to give notice in writing to their employer that they object to working additional hours on Sundays, and a procedure whereby employers can state their position.
Proposed paragraphs (6) and (7) provide protection for workers who object, so that they cannot be dismissed or have punitive action taken against them by their employers because they have lodged an objection to working on Sundays under the conditions implicit in the Bill. The proposed new schedule also provides for statutory rights for those workers, and a framework in which those statutory rights can be operated. It also provides for transitional arrangements, especially for maternity cases. Many people will agree that there should be some limit, and that pregnant women should be treated slightly differently.
I will not detain the House long, because I realise that everyone is desperately eager to be about business other than discussing the Bill; we have had plenty of opportunity to discuss it elsewhere. There is, however, an issue of principle involved.
I support—some of my hon. Friends did not—the general thrust of the Bill on the basis that Sunday is a family day, which gives the opportunity to enjoy a range of leisure facilities. Equally, we believe that those who are expected to work to provide those additional leisure facilities during the extra hours that will be available should have rights, and that the two sets of rights need to be brought into balance. That is the purpose behind our proposed new schedule.
Those who have to work on a Sunday should have the option of being able to set aside some part of the week or some part of Sunday to spend time with their families—perhaps to spend time visiting a bar facility, under the

new provisions, or a restaurant. All we are saying is that two sets of rights have to be considered. We believe that new clause 1 and the new schedule that it would introduce are one way in which to do that.
We do not want to create disharmony. We believe that the Minister has made concessions on other matters, and that he will make some others later this afternoon. We feel, however, that this is an important issue, and we hope that, even at this late stage in the proceedings, the Government will accept that there is a proper case to be made, and that we have made the proper case that the rights of workers who are expected to work on a Sunday should be taken into account.

Mr. James Hill: I rise to declare that I am a consultant to the Society of Licensed Victuallers, and the legislation will apply to the majority of its members. They would be wary of a Bill passing through the House without any objection.
My only objection is that, too often, it is the employees who are mentioned. The average licensee has a living to earn; he has to pay high wages these days. He will certainly have to pay much higher wages for Sundays, Christmas day and Good Friday. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, needs to introduce the Bill, because surely deregulation is the name of the game. We should free up the hours completely, not necessarily have a nibble at them from time to time.
5.30 pm
I have already led a delegation to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The retailer—I shall call him that, for that is what he is—is over-legislated for in this sector. I can understand the fears about the employees, but they have an easy means of presenting their fears—by withdrawing from their work.
I cannot see why we need more regulation in an industry that uses mainly part-time workers for the busy times of the business week. If the landlord can induce his staff to keep working throughout Christmas day, Sundays or Good Friday, it is up to him to see whether he can achieve that through local negotiations. I cannot see why the state needs to become so involved in the legislation.

Mr. Derek Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that, in London and other large cities, there are many illegal immigrant workers, particularly Australians, who work without a licence and are therefore prepared to work for low rates lest they be reported?

Mr. Hill: I am sure that the Home Office has a way of dealing with illegal immigrants; I am sure that it is constantly sending out people to identify them. That is not the way that the landlord of an establishment would care to operate. He does not have to ensure that someone has a work permit if he comes to work two hours on a Sunday afternoon. That is up to the Home Office, which has abysmally neglected that part of the labour market.
This country's immigration policies are lax. I am surprised at that, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is generally at the cutting edge of the right, and does not always stand back. The immigration problem is another problem—it is not something that the landlord can do anything about. All he can do is employ people to work the hours.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for going away—I am sorry, for giving way. That was a Freudian slip. The Bill meets my hon. Friend's aims: it deregulates the position in respect of Sunday afternoons. It may not do as much as my hon. Friend would wish in terms of the evenings. While I agree that the new clause would be regulatory, I should have thought that my hon. Friend would want to give the Government some credit for having extended consumer choice, and for introducing what is generally a deregulatory measure.

Mr. Hill: I thank my right hon. Friend for those few words, but the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) clearly said that the Home Office, indeed the Minister of State, would be making other concessions. I was not too clear about what they were.

Mr. George Howarth: I do not want to test the hon. Gentleman's patience, but I was not expecting any concessions from the Government on new clause 1. The Government may make concessions on other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Hill: I am reassured by that. Bills can be dangerous, as they can be added to in future by other political parties that do not necessarily have the same leanings as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The fewer pieces of legislation there are—this is one Bill that I should have thought was not needed—the fewer restrictions there are. I do not know whether we need a giant prayer against every bit of legislation that affects the licensee.
If there is anything to be done to ensure that the licensee and the employees have a future, preventing the illegal importation of vast quantities of drink along the south coast would be a good thing. I would be more than satisfied if a Bill were introduced on that subject.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has his own very strange interpretation of the Bill. Even those who have criticised it on the grounds that it greatly extends the hours for which public houses are open, without resolving some of the problems associated with that, would have to concede that it is undoubtedly a deregulatory Bill. It sweeps away restrictions on the times at which licensed premises can open on Sunday afternoons, Good Friday and Christmas day—a subject on which the Government have said that they will make a concession.
I am in the strange position of having my name attached to every amendment on the amendment paper today, for a series of different reasons. In the case of the new clause, it is because it follows very much the lines of a new clause that I moved in Committee, which was designed to secure some protection for people who will be obliged to work on Sundays.
A minute or so ago, the subject of illegal immigrants working in the licensed trade was mentioned. A employer has some responsibility to satisfy himself that someone he employs is legally entitled to be so employed. The Department of Employment also plays a significant role, so the position is not quite that described by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
The primary concern of the new clause, as with the new clause that I moved in Committee, is the large number of people, including licensed house managers and bar staff,

who feel extremely vulnerable to pressure to work on Sundays, when they want to set aside at least an hour or two to be with their own families. That fear is genuine and cannot be discounted. The Minister of State and Conservative Members must weigh that fact against the advantages that they see in deregulation.
The Minister and Conservative Members had to make a similar consideration when the House removed most of the restrictions on Sunday retail trading. At that stage, the House decided that it was necessary to make provision—at least to protect those who entered the retail trade without knowing that they could be legally required to work on Sundays.
When those people entered the trade, it would not have been legal for them to be required to do so in a great many of the larger shops. That provision was included in that measure. The Bill contains similar provisions in relation to Sunday afternoon trading in pubs, clubs and off-licences. We are looking to see whether we can provide some protection for the staff involved.
It is unfair and complacent to ignore the feelings that have been expressed. The National Association of Licensed House Managers has been the strongest in expressing those views and has pointed to the contractual obligations under which managers will be required to open their premises for all the legally permitted hours. Bar staff comprise a much less organised group; some of them are part-time and some are dependent on that income. Many of them are women, who are perhaps supplementing a severely diminished family income by working in pubs and clubs. They may want to keep their job, but not have to give up family time on Sundays. That is why some of us thought that such protection was a necessary feature of the Bill.
I am glad that we have returned to the subject now, and I urge the Minister of State to think carefully about the position of those who do not enjoy the genuine freedom of choice that he seeks to give to consumers. I can understand the Minister's desire to give consumers that freedom of choice and, to a point, landlords are being given greater freedom of choice in so far as the landlord has a real freedom to decide whether to open his premises.
However, some landlords will not want to be left behind if a neighbouring premises opens on Sunday afternoons. In that case, the premises that opens on a Sunday afternoon may attract the clientele that the other premises attracted earlier in the day, because those people will know that they can stay for longer in the public house that is open all afternoon. Some landlords may feel pressure to open on Sunday afternoons.
Some people may have freedom of choice, but when the Bill is finally enacted, many people will lose a freedom of choice which they possess at the moment. That is the freedom to spend a limited amount of time on Sunday afternoons with their families, or doing whatever else they want to do on a Sunday afternoon. As the law does not currently allow pubs to be open on Sunday afternoons, they know that they cannot be required to work then.
The Bill reduces some people's freedom. Ministers must recognise that. One way to do that would be to include provisions along the lines of new clause 1.

Mr. James Couchman: I repeat the registered interest, which I still have in the licensed trade, that I declared on Second Reading and in Committee. I


am still a non-executive director of the family company I disposed of at the end of last October. As I have said before, I still have a vestigial interest in the licensed trade. I am also the vice-chairman of the parliamentary beer club, which I believe is the largest all-party group in the House, as it now has nearly 200 members.

Mr. Beith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the parliamentary group which takes an interest in non-profit-making members' clubs is a larger group still, by quite a margin.

Mr. Couchman: The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), who moved the new clause, is seeking to attach the provision to the Licensing Act 1964. That is a very curious mechanism to use through the vehicle of this small and quite limited Bill. The hon. Gentleman has tried to attach to the back of this small Bill a major change in the employment conditions that would apply to bar staff, licensed house managers and tenant licensees.
Anyone who comes to work in the licensed trade fully expects to do so on Sundays. I accepted in Committee that there is a change with regard to Sunday afternoons, but the new schedule applies to the present restricted opening hours on a Sunday.
People who work in the licensed trade are aware of the present Sunday opening hours. I can see no possible reason why the draconian new schedule should be included in the Bill in order to give rights which were specifically excluded when the House debated Sunday trading during the last parliamentary Session.
I was one of the first people to initiate such a protection with regard to Sunday trading, when I introduced a private Member's Bill two years ago. I had the first schedule for protection for workers in my Bill. I recognised that people who were suddenly confronted with the possibility of working on Sundays, when they had been taken on to work six days a week, should have some protection and a right not to work on Sundays.
If the new schedule is included in the Bill, we would make life very difficult for the licensed house managers and tenant licensees if they found that all their staff wanted to opt out of Sunday working. Under the terms of the new schedule, as I understand it—perhaps the hon. Member for Knowsley, North will correct me if I am wrong—all bar staff throughout the country would be given the right to opt out of Sunday working. I am sure that it is not intended that pubs should close on Sundays, but that would be the effect if the staff opted out of Sunday working.
In Committee, we discussed at some length what would happen to the people who work in pub restaurants, who may well work through Sunday afternoons at the moment, as restaurants serving full meals may open during the afternoon break on a Sunday. Waitresses, waiters, kitchen staff and chefs would not be covered by the proposal. We would have a curious situation, whereby the kitchen and dining room staff would not be covered, but bar staff would be covered. The bar staff could opt out of Sunday working, but the catering staff could not. As some people will do both bar and catering work during the week, deciding which is which on Sundays would be a problem.
The new schedule is a very good try on the Opposition's part, but it is not a realistic proposition to be added to this small Bill.

Mr. John Hutton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), I supported the Bill on Second Reading because it makes perfect sense for Sunday licensing hours to be liberalised. I support the new clause and the new schedule to the Licensing Act 1964, for several simple reasons. First, it creates a better balance in the Bill between the rights of consumers and the legitimate rights of people who work in the bar trade on Sundays.
The proposal also creates greater consistency between people who work in on and off-licence premises. As the Minister accepted in Committee, there is at the moment an anomaly between people working in on and off-licence premises on a Sunday. A person working in an off-licence premises on a Sunday currently has the protection afforded to workers under the Sunday Trading Act 1994 not to be compelled to work on a Sunday against his or her wishes.
At the moment, that protection does not extend to people working in on-licence premises. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that it was important to have consistency and not to create too many anomalies. Without rehearsing our arguments in Committee, my point is that, unless the Bill is amended in the way that we propose, it will simply add further anomalies and inconsistencies to the law. That is a bad thing.
It is right in principle, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that, when we, through our law-making powers, change the employment conditions of workers who currently cannot be required to work between 3 pm and 7 pm on Sundays, and make it likely that those people will be required to work those hours, we must produce a framework of protection which will allow workers, for whatever reasons—and hopefully for reasonable grounds—to decline to work those hours and to say to their employers that it is not feasible or practical for them to work those hours. People may have other commitments, perhaps of a religious, social or family nature, which would make it difficult for them to work such hours. Those are the points which the new clause and the new schedule seek to address.
For those reasons, I support the new clause and the new schedule, and I hope that the Minister will have something positive and constructive to say about those issues.

Mr. Enright: I support the new clause, and I want to give a practical example. I also recognise that, no matter how we do this, there are bound to be anomalies with deregulation. However, I want to describe an anomaly which should not arise.
As a concrete example, I refer to Hemsworth Conservative club. That club has more members than voters by quite a considerable margin. The club steward was once nearly sacked for putting my poster in his bedroom window, but fortunately good sense prevailed, because the committee was controlled by good Labour men at the time.
However, people like that club steward are going to be controlled by small committees, be it the Hemsworth Conservative club or the Pontefract RAFA club. Small


committees will say, "Thou shalt work on a Sunday afternoon," when clearly the terms of the contracts of the people involved were for very limited hours of working, particularly in some of the smaller clubs. That will no longer be true, because the clubs will get greedy when they see what the next-door club is doing. Similarly, when clubs see what the adjacent club is doing, they will do the same. So I certainly give my full support to the new clause and the new schedule.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) expected, I am not sure whether I can assist him by accepting his new clause. I must confess that I was slightly alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) began to speak, because I thought that he was attacking the Bill rather than expecting me to accept the Opposition amendment. I hasten to reassure my hon. Friend, because I had no idea that my reputation with him was such that he thought that I would give in so easily, even before the hon. Member for Knowsley, North had been offered the support of his hon. Friends.
I am interested to hear from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) that not only is the Leader of the Opposition embracing Conservative policies, but the men of Hemsworth are embracing the Conservative club—a reverse takeover of truly alarming proportions.

Mr. Enright: May I reassure the Minister by telling him that, when I applied for membership, I was instantly refused?

Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman were to read out the speeches that the Leader of the Opposition has been making in support of the policies that we Conservatives have espoused for some time, and to say that he adhered to those principles, he might yet be able to join the Hemsworth Conservative club. He could even go a stage further, and vote for the Conservative candidate there when the time comes.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made the case for the new clause persuasively, as he did in Committee, and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) cited the protection already given to people who work on Sundays as a result of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the former of which provided protection for shop workers, and the latter for betting shop workers.
However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, during the passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, we debated whether the right should be extended to stable lads as well as betting shop workers. We decided then that it should not, because stable lads could be expected to work on Sundays anyway. That is the distinction here too.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said, people who work in the licensed trade already expect to work on Sundays, so they are in a different position from shop workers in England, if not in Scotland, who could not have expected to do so. For those reasons, I do not think that there is a parallel, so it would not be right to extend employment protection as has been suggested.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) put forward an ingenious argument by pointing to the anomaly between the treatment of employees in off-licences and those in other licensed premises.
I now come to the part of my brief marked, "Use only if pressed". There is an anomaly, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention it, but the people who work in off-licences are shop workers, and as such already have the right to decline Sunday work. It would be irrational for the law to pretend that employees in pubs, restaurants, hotels, sports clubs and so on are shop workers and should therefore have the same rights, simply because the premises in which they work happen to have liquor licences.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the difference, but it stems from the fact that we dealt with the previous set of anomalies that arose in relation to shop workers, when it was felt that it would not be right to distinguish between people because of the differences between the products sold in the various shops. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the end the distinctions in the Act, such as they are, were made according to the size of premises.

Mr. Hutton: While the Minister is dealing with my argument, will he also deal with the fact that workers in off-licences, who now have the protection of the Sunday Trading Act, could legitimately have been asked to work on a Sunday before enactment, as well as after? I am afraid that his argument does not hold much water.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's argument was that we must avoid anomalies, yet he seeks to create another. In so far as an anomaly exists between workers in off-licences and others, it does so because the House took the view that it would be wrong to distinguish between the rights of workers on Sundays according to the nature of the product being sold—in this case, alcohol in off-licences. The hon. Gentleman proposes that, because the distinction exists as a result of the previous legislation, we should create another anomaly in the Bill, covering a particular period.
Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham was not quite accurate in his description of the amendment. The proposal is not that all workers in pubs on Sundays should be protected throughout their day at work; the amendments relate only to the period between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock in the afternoon. If they were accepted, we should have put on to the statute employment protection for workers in pubs between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock.
Some years on, when everyone had got used to the change in the law, some people may look upon that as rather an oddity, just as, in the context of this debate, people who make a careful study of the legislation, such as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, may find an oddity in the treatment of people in off-licences, which under the Sunday Trading Act are shops.
Therefore, ingenious though the hon. Gentleman's argument is, it is not sufficiently persuasive to enable me to commend the new clause and the new schedule to the House. I ask the hon. Member for Knowsley, North to withdraw the new clause rather than pressing it to a Division, so that we can make progress. No doubt he will already have considered my arguments and the reasons behind them.

Mr. George Howarth: There is a difference of approach between the Minister and ourselves, which is to some extent exemplified by what his hon. Friends have said. The kernel of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test seems to be that there is an equal relationship between bar staff and the breweries, managed houses or whatever that employ them.
However, whatever the nationality of the bar staff, all too often the relationship is not as balanced and equal as the hon. Gentleman implied. Especially nowadays, when one cannot walk out of one job into another, rights need to be protected in those circumstances. It is not a simple matter of a discussion between employees and employers, because such discussions never take place on an equal footing.
The hon. Member for Gillingham did not quite understand my amendment. I can understand why, because it is extremely complicated to deal with deregulation of the licensed trade on an incremental basis. But if the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause and new schedule again, he will discover that, as the Minister conceded, the new schedule would apply only to the additional hours covered by the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman has a wider objection, which has been well rehearsed, but the specific point that he made on this occasion does not apply to the amendments.

Mr. Barry Porter: I was taken with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, to which no one has yet responded. What about the thousands of people employed in restaurants within pubs between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock on Sundays? There appear to be no problems or difficulties with those people, so why should there be problems with people employed to dispense drinks? I cannot see the difference.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Gillingham and, seemingly, the hon. Member for Wirral, South, assume that, if the protection were to become law, all the workers covered would inevitably try to make use of it. Most workers will probably simply accept the extra hours, but for the minority of people with a valid objection, our suggestions set out a procedure that they can go through, and even provide opportunities for employers to state the terms on which objections are not acceptable.
All that is covered, but amending deregulation legislation as it goes along is a complicated business, and we understand how confusion can arise when people hear what we are saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enfield) made some useful points, particularly in relation to the Hemsworth Conservative club. It is perhaps representative of the feeling all over the country that the Hemsworth Conservative club is a bastion of Labour party support.

6 pm

Mr. Michael Alison: For the purpose of clarification, as the Yorkshire neighbour of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enfield), I should point out that the hon. Gentleman was refused membership of the Hemsworth Conservative club not because he is a member of the Labour party, but because control of that club has fallen into the hands of the Militant Tendency.

Mr. Howarth: One of my party pieces is to discuss in some detail Trotsky's theory of transitional demand—which, by the way, I do not support. In the present

circumstances, I think that it would be straying too far from the terms of the legislation to enter into a discussion about the Militant Tendency. While my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth continues to represent that constituency, the Militant Tendency will never be allowed in the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) will have to make his own arrangements about dealing with that group in the Hemsworth Conservative club.
I do not think that we should take too much to heart the fears that Government Members have expressed. The Minister's remarks have not changed my views, and I do not think that they have changed those of my hon. Friends. However, with leave, I will withdraw the new clause, safe in the knowledge that our colleagues in another place will take the opportunity to raise the issue again when it comes before them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

PERMITTED HOURS IN LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 1, leave out lines 5 to 12 and insert—

'. —(1) Section 60 of the Licensing Act 1964 (permitted hours in licensed premises) shall be amended as follows

(2) For subsection (1)(b) (Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday) there shall be substituted—

"(b) on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, and on Good Friday, the hours from twelve noon to half past ten in the evening; and
(c) on Christmas Day, the hours from twelve noon to half past ten in the evening, with a break of four hours beginning at three in the afternoon.".

(3) At the end of subsection (6) (off-licences) there shall be added the words ", and the permitted hours on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, and on Good Friday shall begin at ten in the morning".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after 'Friday', insert
'for the words, "Christmas Day" there shall be substituted the words "(other than a Sunday which is Christmas Day)".'.

No. 3, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—

'(1A) After section 60(1)(b) of that Act there shall be inserted the words"; and
(c) on Christmas Day, the hours from twelve noon to half past ten in the evening with a break of five hours beginning at two in the afternoon.".'.

Government amendment No. 17.

No. 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out from 'clubs)' to end of line 15 and insert—

'(a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
(a) on days other than Christmas Day, the general licensing hours, and"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday" there shall be substituted the words "on Christmas Day" and in sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "three", and for the word "three" there shall be substituted the word "two".'.

Government amendments Nos. 18 to 25.

Mr. Forsyth: Very strong views were expressed during the Committee stage of the Bill about the inclusion of Christmas day in the terms of the legislation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)


is not present in the Chamber, because in Committee he said that there was no point in hon. Members attending if Ministers were not prepared to listen to their arguments.
I listened to the arguments on this occasion. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the Opposition spokesman pressed me on the matter. Since then, a number of other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), have approached me about leaving Christmas day licensing hours as they stand at present.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said in Committee—and I agree with him—there is nothing in the Bill which would require public houses to open for the additional hours on Christmas day. Most public houses do not open for the full hours that are presently permitted on Christmas day.
However, in deference to the views that hon. Members have expressed, I have tabled the amendments—I admit that I did not appreciate that it would take quite so many words to remove "Christmas day" from the legislation. I know that the amendments address the concerns of a number of hon. Members, and I hope that they will speed the Bill's passage through the Parliament.
The effect of the amendments is to ensure that people who are employed in licensed premises do not have to work on Christmas afternoon. They will be able to spend that time with their families and listen to Her Majesty's broadcast to the nation or whatever. I hope that that accords with the wishes of the House.

Mr. Beith: I warmly welcome the Minister's decision to move the amendments. He listened to the arguments that hon. Members put during the Committee. I discussed those points with him following the Committee proceedings, and I know that several other hon. Members also approached him about the subject.
When I moved an amendment along those lines in Committee, I called it the "Bet Lynch Christmas dinner amendment". There is no doubt that it is very important to many landlords and public house managers to be able to shut their doors on Christmas day, get the turkeys out of the oven and spend some time with their families in what are their homes.
Although the Minister is correct when he says that public houses are not obliged to open on Christmas day, it is at least possible—I think it is quite likely—that competitive pressure in some areas would lead the breweries to force managers in their employ to open on Christmas day. In some cases, licensees would feel obliged to open rather than allow their competitors to test the Christmas afternoon market.
That would mean the loss of a very special time for almost every family in the country. There are very few families to whom Christmas day is not important, and we try as much as we can to allow workers in all but the most essential industries to spend that time with their families.
There is no real evidence of a strong demand for Christmas day opening in the same way that there is a genuine call for the relaxation of hours on Sunday afternoons throughout the year. The issue was not addressed by the Prime Minister in his trailer for the legislation. In stressing the importance that he attached to

Sunday deregulation, he made no mention of Christmas day. Therefore, I think it right that we should have second thoughts about it.
Following the Committee stage, I received letters of support from licensees and public house managers, who agreed that it was not necessary to include Christmas day in the terms of the Bill. People should be given a clear assurance that they will not be required to work on Christmas afternoon.
I am grateful to hon. Members from other parties, including the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)— and other Government Members, whom I shall not name lest I should embarrass them, who also made their views known—who joined me in seeking to persuade the Minister about the matter. I am very glad that the Minister has listened to our views and has moved amendments in order to achieve the intended effect. There are some technical differences between my amendments and the Government's amendments, but they are of no consequence, and I shall not press my amendments.

Mr. Couchman: I was going to ask the right hon. Member whether he intended to press his amendments. They are somewhat different from the Government's, and I think that they may tighten the current position further.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member is correct in one respect: my amendments would effect a 2 o'clock closure on Christmas day. That was the position until a few years ago, and it is generally thought that the hours on Sunday changed to 3 o'clock because of a mistake on the part of the Home Office. There is a case for at least returning to that original intention, but we can set that aside. There is consensus in favour of accepting the Minister's amendments. I certainly accept them, and I am glad that the Minister has taken that decision.

Mr. Alison: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the persistence and perspicacity with which he pursued this narrow but important and valuable point, and on the way in which he argued his case in Committee. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister most warmly on his typical receptiveness and sensitivity in accepting a proposal which I believe will cause general rejoicing in every part of the House and the country.
It is not merely a symbolic gesture, although the Christmas festival remains a special time in Britain; the measure is also a practical one. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently stated that a quarter of the British population attended Christmas day church services in 1994. That is an almost unimaginable number.
The amendment will allow more time for family life on Christmas day, and it is symbolic of our national tendency at present—we are militant in the Christian sense of the word, if not in the socialist sense. I congratulate the Minister most warmly on introducing those important amendments.

Mr. George Howarth: On behalf of the Opposition, I place on record the fact that we also warmly welcome the conversion on the part of the Minister. We accept that Christmas day has a number of meanings for different people. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the Church Commissioner, has given one side of the argument. The other side is that, even if Christmas day


does not have the same Christian significance for everyone, it has a broader family significance for many. We welcome the Government amendments to the extent that they recognise that fact, and we certainly do not intend to impede them in any way.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2

PERMITTED HOURS IN REGISTERED CLUBS

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 1, line 14, leave out from 'clubs)' to end of line 15 and insert '—

(a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
(a) on days other than Christmas Day, the general licensing hours;"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday," there shall be substituted the words "Christmas Day,".'.

No. 18, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'( ) In section 62(3) of that Act (notice of permitted hours) for the words "on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday" there shall be substituted the words "on Christmas Day".'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 3

RESTRICTION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Christmas Day or'.

No. 20, in page 1, line 22, leave out ', Christmas Day'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 1

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 3, leave out lines 5 to 38 and insert—
'. In section 51(2) (register of clubs), for the words "on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday," there shall be substituted the words "on Christmas Day,".
. In section 60(5) (permitted hours in licensed premises), for the words "(a) and (b)" there shall be substituted the words "(a) to (c)".
. In section 68(1)(a) (extension of permitted hours in restaurants), for the words "Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday," there shall be substituted the words "Christmas Day,".
. In section 87A (power to vary permitted hours in on-licensed vineyard premises)—

(a) in subsection (4)—

(i) for the words ", Christmas Day or" there shall be substituted the words ", other than Christmas Day, or on"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b) for the word "five" there shall be substituted the word "nine"; and


(b) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—

(4A) In making an order under this section with respect to the permitted hours on Christmas Day, licensing justices may not so vary the hours as to make them—

(a) begin before twelve noon; or
(b) exceed in total more than five and a half hours.".'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 4, leave out lines 4 to 24.

No. 23, in page 4, line 27, column 3, leave out '4 and 5' and insert 'and 4'.

No. 24, in page 4, leave out lines 28 and 29.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 25, in title, line 3, leave out 'Christmas Day'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Bill reported, with amendments.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be read the Third Time, put forthwith and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

EXTERNAL FRONTIERS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11287/93, relating to controls on persons at the external frontiers of the European Union; welcomes the objective of achieving effective controls on persons at the external frontiers of the Member States; endorses the Government's determination to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain immigration controls on non-European Economic Area nationals at United Kingdom internal frontiers; endorses the need to preserve the intergovernmental character of agreements concluded under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union; endorses the Government's commitment, in the event of agreement between all parties, that the final text of the draft External Frontiers Convention should be brought back to Parliament before signature and that the draft Convention should not be ratified before the necessary legislation has been enacted by Parliament; and endorses the Government's aim of ensuring that full account is taken of the United Kingdom's present practice in drawing up the common visa list.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Edgware General Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful for this important Adjournment debate, which contrasts with the previous harmonious stages of a Bill on which hon. Members on both sides of the House seemed agreed, the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill. This is a painful moment, because it gives me no pleasure to take issue with the Government and with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and other colleagues responsible for the threatened closure of Edgware general hospital's accident and emergency department.
That outrageous decision is unacceptable to me, to many of my hon. Friends and to the local population. A campaign was launched to save the hospital and to maintain its existing range of services. I must express my considerable anger and resentment at the manner in which the matter has been handled, notwithstanding ample exchanges earlier in the House. The last thing you want, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is for me to be repetitive or to refer to other hospitals threatened with total or partial closure. For that reason, although I am tempted to refer to other threatened London hospitals, I shall confine my remarks to Edgware general.
I use the word "threatened" deliberately. The Government have said that they agree with the proposal to close Edgware general's A and E unit. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be surprised to hear me say with great force that a massive local campaign will be unleashed to save the hospital's facilities and to persuade the Government to change their mind.
Since the campaign for Edgware general was launched more than one year ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and by me, it has grown in conviction. It is not, as some bureaucrats suggest, an emotional campaign but a carefully thought-out campaign, with medical evidence supporting our arguments.
I share the resentment of other hon. Members that the dreadful announcement of the proposed closure of Edgware general's A and E unit was made in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on Tuesday, because the hospital is precious to our constituents and an important part of the all-London health service care system. Today, the Secretary of State was obliged to come to the House, to respond to a private notice question from my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I cannot recall an occasion in recent years, or even decades, when a former Secretary of State who was until recently a member of the Cabinet insisted, justifiably, on a proper statement to the House—if that is the right word for the Secretary of State's lamentable announcement. That statement about Edgware general and other hospitals was not acceptable to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Again and again, the Government gave a solemn undertaking that there would be no adverse effect on primary health care facilities in our part of north-west London. Manifestly, that undertaking will be betrayed and traduced cynically and ruthlessly by the decision to close

Edgware general's accident and emergency facilities. Local Members of Parliament will be fighting hard to ensure that the Government change that decision.
I take no pleasure in saying that, if that does not happen, the Government will face defeat if there are any votes on those matters in the House. I take no pleasure, because I do not want to anticipate that position being reached. However, that is the stark situation that confronts us and the Government.
The whole panoply and the way in which the matter has been handled are encapsulated in the terms of the early-day motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North and I, and other hon. Friends tabled on 3 April—the day before the announcement about Edgware general's A and E unit was made. By then, there was an indication that the Department of Health had not listened to any of the local arguments for retaining that facility. It will take a long time before local Members of Parliament change their minds. I much resent the way in which Sir William Staveley and his colleagues on the regional health authority dealt with the many objections to the closure, and to the recent meeting at which that decision was taken. I was unable to attend it myself but received a full report from my local colleagues that the issue was not dealt with satisfactorily.
I shall refer to one or two important elements in our early-day motion, because that is the most convenient way to explain why we feel so strongly and why the A and E unit must be kept open beyond 1997. My constituency and Hendon, North would be most affected, because the hospital borders them on the Edgware road. A large number of my constituents use the hospital, including an above-average number of elderly patients who rely on the services of this outstanding and successful district general hospital.
Today, we received a deputation comprising mainly schoolchildren but also councillors and others. All the children had been born at Edgware general and their parents regularly make use of it—although, obviously, no one takes pleasure in a hospital being regularly used by people who are ill. Edgware general is regarded with great affection locally.
When the Royal National Orthopaedic—a famous teaching hospital—in my constituency was deprived of its accident and emergency facilities 10 years ago, Government spokesmen said that those facilities and immediate treatment would be maintained and enhanced at Edgware general and that there would be no deterioration in the service.
My difficulty, my constituency being on the Harrow side of the border of the Edgware road, has been that decisions have been recommended mainly by Barnet district health authority, whose remit is outside the area which I represent. Close contact and liaison have been maintained, however, between Members and the protest group over many months. There has been close liaison with the understandable exception of a good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). As he is a Whip, he is not permitted to act on these matters. I fully acknowledge that he is in a different position from other colleagues in the area when it comes to the future of Edgware general hospital, because of the proposal for the extension of Barnet district hospital.
The early-day motion to which I referred reminds the House and the Government with great solemnity that the proposal to close the accident and emergency unit is
contrary to the overwhelming opinion of those residing in the catchment area … these proposals are based on debatable clinical assumptions allied to conjectural statistics … there are strong social considerations in favour of retaining an Accident and Emergency Department at Edgware; notes that these consideration include transport and traffic problems".
Edgware general hospital is in an extremely congested area. I note the arrival of three distinguished colleagues. I am glad to see that they wish to take part in the debate. I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). Given the recent Jopling procedural changes, it may be possible for us to speak on this Adjournment debate for a little longer than is usual. We might not wish to continue for as long as some pessimists imagine, despite the great importance of the issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I shall assist the House. The rules are clear: the Adjournment debate can continue until 10.30 pm. I remind hon. Members, however, that this is a specific debate that is confined to Edgware general hospital. The House spent an hour earlier on other health service matters. The Chair will be strict in ensuring that the debate is confined to Edgware general hospital.

Mr. Dykes: That is why I was trying, Mr. Deputy Speaker—obviously, I was not especially successful—to choose with great, exquisite and painful care a balance of words that would give the impression that we had the right to continue for longer than usual, but that it was understood that to do so might be rather taxing on the patience of other colleagues, including the occupant of the Chair, especially if the expansion of time were to be excessive in all the relativities. I would welcome such an expansion, however, if it were feasible and possible. As I have said, we are dealing with a crucial issue.
That being so, my colleagues present in the Chamber will understand that I shall not necessarily, unless they are minded strongly to intervene, be prepared to give way. They will have the opportunity to make their own contributions, which I shall welcome warmly. That is subject only to the fact that I have to see one of the Harrow deputations on this subject later this evening. Its members will be coming to the House. I would have to leave the Chamber, if the debate were lengthy, to see them. I also have a speaking engagement later today. In any event, we shall see how the debate goes.
I was expressing the anger that we all feel. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North and I, with the strong support and approval of other colleagues, have led the campaign because our constituents are the most affected physically and geographically. As I have said, the hospital is on the border of the Edgware road. I think that I am right in saying that the majority of patients and others using the hospital probably come, notwithstanding that the figures fluctuate and float, from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North. I accept, of course, that many come from elsewhere, sometimes from quite far afield. They come to an excellent hospital. It is extremely popular and part of the local human and social community. That must be emphasised to our ministerial colleagues. I have in mind

that which others and I said about Edgware general hospital in unhappy exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
I am worried about all aspects of the closure proposal. That is why others and I will be fighting hard and relentlessly to persuade the Government to change their mind. I am especially concerned about traffic congestion. It is an extremely congested area. If people are obliged to go to Barnet, Northwick Park or the Royal Free hospitals, their journeys will take a great deal of time. That would be unacceptable for emergency treatment, including other treatment that patients should receive in a hurry. We would be extremely irresponsible as Members if we put up with such bureaucratic nonsense from the Department. I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, as I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that it is the job of politicians in the Department of Health to balance the ruthless arguments of accounting and financial officers, along with those of the bureaucrats, with the human and political considerations that relate to the needs of our constituents and patients generally.
We were given to understand quite a few years ago that there would be no reduction in the services at Edgware general hospital. The hospital is needed, as much as Barnet hospital needs to be expanded. I welcome that expansion, as long as it does not cause Edgware general to suffer. Northwick Park hospital is too far away. It is a major district general hospital with research facilities. St. Mark's hospital is happily going into it, as it were, as a new unit of excellence and special research. All these services are being provided, but a long way away. I estimate that if a journey were made in normal traffic conditions—not in the rush hour—from Edgware general to Northwick Park, it would take about 45 to 50 minutes. In an emergency, that is far too long a journey to an alternative installation.
That journey time shows how inhuman and ill thought out is the judgment with which we are faced. We are faced with a complex—indeed, Byzantine—set of arguments and statistics. I pay tribute to the Evening Standard, which campaigned mostly on behalf of inner-London hospitals, but also for London hospitals generally. There may be some arguments open to the bureaucrats and politicians in the Department of Health that enable them to say that there is some duplication of physical facilities and financial resources in some national central London teaching hospitals, some of which are centuries old. Their long standing is a factor in itself. I can understand the anger that is reflected in the campaign being mounted on their behalf.
At the same time, outer-London hospitals do not have enough facilities. The idea that they have too much is absurd. That is the position in north-west London. In the area that I represent, people are waiting far too long for treatment. It is dispiriting and frustrating for those who have to wait an extremely long time for non-emergency treatment.
The idea that we can close with equanimity, and with callous disregard for the needs of local people, accident and emergency facilities that are so precious to the community is unacceptable. It is not enough for us to protest today about the closure. We will not be doing that because we shall be fighting the proposal all the way through. We shall wage a massive campaign to persuade the Government to change their mind.
It would not be a weakness on the part of Ministers to change their mind and to consider these matters again. They should look again at what has been wrongly decided by the regional health authority. I referred earlier, before the arrival of my hon. Friends, to the cavalier manner in which Sir William Staveley dealt with the proposals at the last consultation meeting. In fact, it was not a consultation meeting. We have been inundated with thousands of views and opinions, including those from medical practitioners and medical experts in our constituencies. I do not know of anyone—if any evidence can be furnished to me to the contrary, I shall happily correct myself at a later occasion—who has given support to the closure proposal. I am talking of people who know about the sharp end or coal face of medical treatment and what is needed for the interests of patients and their families.
It must be understood that a hospital should not be a cold, callous place, one part of what is the greatest health service in the world in many ways, despite the depredations that we have seen in recent years. A hospital is not, as I say, a cold, callous place where people are merely admitted for clinical treatment. It should not be thought of as a place where people receive a necessary bald measure of treatment, and that is it.
Edgware general hospital lives in the hearts and minds of local people. Many people have known it since it started to function and developed with its post-war services. They have known it since it expanded and became a commanding district general hospital in an area of great population growth. It has a particular attraction and affection in the hearts of elderly people locally because of the excellent treatment that they receive in all respects, including accident and emergency services.
About a year ago, on 19 April, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State various questions about the hospital. I thank the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who answered, for attending the debate this evening. I hope that some of his answers will be designed to convince us that the proposal is sound. I have my doubts, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt before his reply.
The campaign against the proposal has continued for a long time. Many hours have been devoted to it. It has been a massive and popular campaign. Detailed arguments have been calculated and considered. It is not merely an emotional campaign, although there is bound to be emotion, of course, when a hospital is threatened with closure. I do not apologise for that. If the bureaucrats in the Department said that it was an emotional campaign, I would agree. But the campaign is not only that: it is based on hard-nosed calculations by us as Members of Parliament and by all the people who are involved in the campaign of what is needed in that area, the population pressure, the lack of facilities if the hospital is closed down, and other related factors.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a year ago, on 19 April, what representations against the proposed closure of the A and E services at Edgware general had been sent to the Department since the beginning of 1994. We had started the campaign well before that; we became pessimistic and alarmed about the matter a long time ago. That is why we worked in a cohesive group, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, who has led our campaign

with great distinction. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, gave the usual bland temporary service reply:
Any proposal for a major change in services would be subject to a period of public consultation. The matter comes to Ministers if there are objections. All factors are taken into account including public representations."—[Official Report, 19 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 475.]
Those representations have been brushed aside in this case, by the Department, by the direct agency responsible and, indeed, by Barnet. That is the unacceptable part of this whole business. The anger expressed in the House today about other hospitals is reflected, repeated and mirrored in this Adjournment debate when we express and redouble our expression of anger about the views of people and the medical experts being dismissed with flimsy statistical justification. I particularly resent that, as they know more about the subject than all of us.
The accountants have an obsession that, somehow, money will be saved. I doubt that very much. I think that it would cost more in the end if the services were transferred to the other two hospitals and to the Royal Free. The Royal Free—like most hospitals, sadly—is severely overloaded, and so it is one of the least practical suggestions.
After I received the reply from the Under-Secretary, I commented, saying:
I regard the last part of the answer as crucial"—
referring to the public representations and consultations.
The vast number of objections to closure will I trust be conclusive in the end, partly because they include most informed medical opinion in the area as well.
At that stage, a number of medical people were arguing on behalf of the Barnet proposal instead. That is true, but I think I am right in saying that that support has died away, and the longer the campaign has gone on, the more angry and resentful has become the medical and the wider social world. The people whom we respect in the local community: the opinion formers, the professional people—without being pompous to others—the people whose opinions are respected by members of the public, because they are leading representatives of the community in a non-political sense, are all against the proposal. It is not just a knee-jerk reaction that happens when facilities are reduced.
The old pledge that Conservatives gave—I regarded it as a most solemn pledge to my constituents, was happy to echo it and was delighted when it was said from Conservative party platforms and repeated by the noble Baroness Thatcher, and afterwards—that the national health service would be safe in our hands, was one of the most solemn pledges given by any political party in recent decades—

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Outrageous.

Mr. Dykes: I heard my hon. Friend the Whip say, "Outrageous". It was loud enough for me to hear. If it is outrageous for me to remind my Government colleagues, whom I normally support loyally and faithfully, that a pledge that the national health service would be safe in our hands is now being undermined by the closure of district general hospitals, I make no apology and would ask him to be a gentleman and apologise later on. Perhaps next time he will be wiser.
I am quite intrigued that my hon. Friend the Whip is laughing and smirking when I am protesting and doing what a Member of Parliament never has to apologise for,


to any Department or Minister—defending the interests of his own constituents when a vital medical health installation is threatened with closure. If that is a matter for laughing and smirking, my hon. Friend is not fit to be a Government Whip, because most of my colleagues who are Government Whips would not behave like that. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is continuing to laugh. I am glad that he has a well-developed sense of humour. Perhaps it will stand him in good stead later on when his constituents reflect on his performance as a Member of Parliament, because now that he has to take the Trappist vow of silence as a Government Whip, he will have to work that much harder locally to appeal to them with his local performance.
In contrast to my hon. Friend the Whip's behaviour—he is continuing to laugh—I am glad to pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who cannot, of course, speak on this matter, and is bound to have a different view on the matter because of the position of Barnet hospital in his constituency. My colleagues in the Whips' office in general—perhaps with one exception—are decent people and behave properly on these occasions. Once again, I am sad to see that kind of reaction when I am doing what I perceive to be my duty. But I am and remain a loyal supporter of the Government.
I hope that that will reinforce the scope and extent of my protest, because I would not attack all the proposals that the Government are making: trying to make the NHS more efficiently managed and better run financially with a greater rational sense of the use of resources. That is right and it is the duty of any Government. All Governments, of whatever colour, would have to be extremely careful about the use of NHS resources—the unlimited demand for them—and I pay tribute to their efforts to do that. But that should not mean closure of district general hospitals or, indeed, the most important part of the services. When I say closure, I do not mean the whole hospital but the A and E unit, which is the major part of a hospital. Without an A and E facility in Edgware hospital, the hospital would die. We know that. It would be a very small rump hospital, without the essential services that are needed on these occasions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North has kindly allowed me to quote from a letter from one of his constituents. I shall not identify the constituent's name, as that would be wrong. It is from a constituent who has always been a strong supporter of our party. We have been inundated with thousands of letters on the subject, as would be expected. The letter reads:
I cannot see how the Labour party could destroy our health service any more than it is at the moment".
That is a rather over-strong statement, which I do not accept, but one can understand that reaction when people see what is happening to this precious local unit. The letter continues, in more acceptable language:
The closure of Edgware Hospital as a community hospital serving all the needs of the local people is appalling. Don't tell us that this is not directly the Governments responsibility, it could be if they wanted it to be. The people most affected by the changes at the hospital will be the young people with young children and the elderly, who do not have cars to take them to the other hospitals who are supposed to make room for the people of Edgware … It is also very difficult to get to particularly in the busy times when it can take 50 minutes by car.
That is a figure that I have timed in my own car to get to, say, Northwick Park hospital. Anyway, it is a different catchment area. That must be emphasised.
The letter continues:
An elderly friend of mine was admitted as an emergency at Edgware only to find herself in a bed at Chase Farm, Enfield. With no family and only other elderly friends to rely on, this lady was stranded. It would have taken three buses for her friends"—
one can imagine how long it would take, waiting at bus stops, the changes, and so on—
to reach her at this hospital. They were frightened of travelling so far and also coming home in the dark. Incidentally, the staff kept reminding her that she was not in their catchment area and they did not know what the procedures would be for after-hospital care … She also had to pay for a minicab to take her home.
That is just one example of the thousands of letters that we have received. Do I accept the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Whip and just ignore them? Should I dismiss them and say, "Don't you complain. You are just voters and constituents. You don't matter. We've had consultations. We have thrown all the papers away?" That is impossible. No Government can ask their supporters in the House to put up with such a proposition. That is why the campaign will continue.
It gives me no pleasure to talk in those terms. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will understand how strongly my hon. Friends and I feel. I look forward to his reply. It is not too late for the Government to reconsider these matters. This is only the first stage. As has been said, the circumstances of the announcement were extremely regrettable and clumsy, but that can be corrected. The Government can think again.
There may be some arguments at the margin about some of the central London facilities, although I hesitate to agree too wholeheartedly with that because I would like them all to continue if they can be afforded. Outer London hospitals in general and the Edgware general hospital in particular are in a different position from the point of view of catchment, transport links, congestion and the needs of the elderly, the young in particular, and all those who need accident and emergency facilities.
My hon. Friend is a conscientious Minister. We thank him for his attentions in the past. He has acquired something of a reputation for being more reasonable in many ways than others, whom I shall not name, in his responses to our efforts to obtain a just solution to this difficult problem. I hope that he will be able to reassure us today, even as a temporary measure, by saying that the matter will be looked at again.
That is a heartfelt plea. I say with great sincerity that it is important that our local people are reassured. They have had many economic and social hammer blows in recent years and this is the last straw in the local area. They cannot put up with it and we want the Minister to say that he will reconsider the matter, take further advice and see what can be done. I would be most grateful if he could reassure us on this occasion.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I concur entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes): this is a major issue in our constituencies. I have visited Edgware general hospital on a number of occasions. I have timed the journey to it by car. I have talked to patients inside and to its staff. They are unanimous that the accident and emergency department should continue.
I know the roads in the area as well as any Member of Parliament who is here because they go through my constituency. From Edgware general hospital to Northwick Park hospital is a journey of six and a half miles on congested roads. On a Saturday afternoon, early in the morning or during the second rush hour the journey can take anything up to an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half. At those times I usually have to make a detour in order to complete my journey in a reasonable time.
We are asking for a reappraisal. There is no local support for the closure of the accident and emergency department. Closure will add to the difficulties in other hospitals as people have to be sent further and further afield.
I trust that this is a listening Government. All Members of Parliament from the area feel strongly that the accident and emergency department should remain at Edgware. Even at this late hour, the matter can be reconsidered. A sensible Government can do sensible things at any time, just as an non-sensible Government can do non-sensible things at any time. We ask for a full reappraisal so that those of us who feel strongly about the matter are not forced to take action in the Lobby that we do not wish to take.

Mr. John Marshall: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Perhaps preference should have been given to hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst), but I am sure that he too will catch your eye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman was fortunate to catch my eye as I took the Chair.

Mr. Marshall: I should not complain about my good fortune, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your kindness now and for your kindnesses earlier this morning.
Edgware general hospital serves two wards in my constituency—Hendon and West Hendon wards. I know the accident and emergency department quite well because I have twice had to take my youngest son there. On Sunday I decided that I would drive to Barnet hospital to try to work out how long it would take me to take him there compared with Edgware. The difference is some 50 per cent. On a Sunday afternoon when there is relatively little traffic, that does not make a great deal of difference. During the week it would take substantially longer to take a child or a patient from Hendon to Barnet than it would from Hendon to Edgware.
Some of the wards served by Edgware general hospital are among the most socially and economically deprived in the London borough of Barnet and in the north-west of London. The West Hendon ward and the West Hendon estate have much social deprivation and car ownership is much lower than elsewhere in the borough.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is suggesting that in-patient facilities should be transferred from Edgware, which is relatively convenient for visitors, to Barnet general hospital, which will be inconvenient for visitors living in the West Hendon ward. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think again.
Earlier this afternoon I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State how much money would be spent on additional primary care facilities in the London borough of Barnet. We are told that some £210 million will be spent across London. But it is no use constituents using the Edgware general hospital being told that facilities are not going into West Hendon or Burnt Oak but into Hackney or Islington. That is not providing the additional facilities that are necessary to relieve the pressure on hospital facilities in north-west London.
As part of the change, we are told that in-patient facilities will go from Edgware general hospital to Barnet, the Royal Free and Northwick Park. My agent has twice been into the Royal Free in recent weeks and she says that it is already bursting at the seams. The thought of additional patients going to the Royal Free is just not on.
I should like my hon. Friend to tell the House what the net change in in-patient facilities will be when the new Barnet general hospital is completed. Obviously, in addition to the beds required at Barnet general for patients who currently use that hospital, beds will be needed for those transferred from Edgware. We should be told how many that will be.
The proposed closure of facilities at Edgware also concerns the London ambulance service. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister on that subject from time to time and I should like an updated statement on the efficiency of the London ambulance service.
We should also be given some concept of the change in timing as a result of yesterday's announcement. When the subject went out to public consultation it was suggested that the facilities would be removed in April 1997. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put certain conditions upon the decision announced yesterday and I should like my hon. Friend the Minister, if he can, to say how long he envisages it will be before those conditions are confirmed.
Some three years ago there was a proposal to close Barnet hospital and we all agreed with our hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that the roads between Barnet and Edgware were so poor and the journey time between them so long that they were two different communities and that it was wrong to say that they should have to use the same hospital. Just as it was wrong to propose the closure of Barnet general hospital—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was also at the forefront of that battle—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at these proposals and answer some of the specific questions that I have asked him this evening.

Sir John Gorst: I shall not go over the same ground as my hon. Friends, all of whose comments are worthy of consideration by the Government. A year or so ago I secured an Adjournment debate on this subject; my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was present then, and may wish to remind himself of what I said.
Let me try to bridge the gap between what my hon. Friends and I think should be happening, and the Government's view. The Government see the current


hospital closures in the light of facts, statistics and other rational considerations, but I ask them to consider the wider issues before making the wrong decision.
Let me explain the difference between the job of a politician and that of a civil servant. Let us suppose that a building development on the property of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is proposed, and that the proposal is cost-effective, rational, logical and immensely convenient to many other people. Let us also suppose, however, that my hon. Friend and his neighbours take exception to the proposal, along with people living in the village and, indeed, the district.
It is the job of a politician—a Minister, perhaps—to say, "Of course it all sounds reasonable, but this Dykes character will not wear it, and nor will anyone else living in the district. Go away and find another plan that will not involve his house."
When I spoke to the my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State late last week, I pointed out that when a calculator is asked to add two and two it can produce only one answer: four. I ask Ministers to go back to their civil servants and say, "We want you to make a different calculation." They can very easily come up with a different plan.
We, as politicians, must recognise that there is another element in the equation: human feelings—human fears and reactions. We are talking not just about someone's house but about people's lives. We are talking about a place where people are born, where they may go in a traumatised state if they are ill or have an accident and where—alas—some of them will die, and be visited in their final days. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to bear in mind that deeply emotional dimension, rather than merely producing statistics to prove the clinical importance and the rationality of the decision.
We have heard about the clinical, financial and social considerations. My hon. Friends have spoken eloquently about the social considerations, and I spoke of them a year ago. However, there are also political considerations. I am not talking about the number of votes that my constituency will attract or lose; I am talking about intangible issues relating to people's real concerns.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will re-examine the position. No one wants to resort to extreme measures in the Lobby, but I repeat my commitment to vote against the Government if they will not reconsider—and I can give no assurance that I will not withdraw my support in the Lobby for their plans for London's health service as a whole. They are not considering the important element that we were elected to deal with: the human element. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect carefully on what I have said.

Mr. Jim Dowd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). The fates have conspired in his favour: not only is the debate particularly opportune, but he has a good deal of time on his hands, not normally granted to those who have the luck to secure Adjournment debates.
I freely admit that I am not as well briefed on issues relating to Edgware and Barnet as others who have spoken, but I believe that issues surrounding the decisions that have been made also apply to other parts of London, particularly the part that I represent. As the hon. Member

for Harrow, East pointed out, the nature of consultation is important: how much weight is given to the views of those who are consulted?
Many people throughout London feel that decisions were made at the outset, and that little or no regard has been paid to the subsequent consultation exercise other than very selectively. They feel that the views that they have been asked to submit on issues affecting the areas in which they live have been jettisoned, or at least placed so far down the scale as to be rendered virtually meaningless. People will rightly feel aggrieved about some aspects of what is happening to Edgware general hospital: what they want cannot be given to them, for reasons that have not been adequately explained.
Earlier today, in a question to the Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) defined democracy, or its purpose, as giving people what they want. Obviously, we cannot always do that; there are constraints on resources. I served on an area health authority, and subsequently a district health authority, from 1976 to 1990, so I am well aware of the difficult decisions that must be made. However, I strongly share the instinct voiced by the hon. Member for Hendon, North—the feeling that, if we cannot give people what they want, there must be glaringly compelling, overpowering reasons for not doing so. The technical assessments of what may or may not be right simply do not measure up to the task of providing what people want.
It is generally possible to make budgetary decisions from one year to another that can be improved in better times, or avoided in the light of experience. In the case of the closure of hospitals that have served generations of people in certain localities, however, much of the action that is now being suggested will prove to be irreversible. I feel that people and their Members of Parliament are fully entitled to know that every possible step has been taken, and every implication considered, before such irreversible decisions are made.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I am one of the four Members representing Barnet and last year we waged a local battle to maintain facilities at Barnet general hospital, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). We won that battle. It would be churlish to begin what I believe is a unhappy chapter this week without at least giving credit to the Government for saving Barnet general hospital at considerable expense to the taxpayer. We believe that the Government meant what they said, and certainly we approved last year when the Government decided to rebuild, modernise and improve Barnet general hospital at a cost of some £90 million.
Yesterday afternoon we heard the decision that the accident and emergency department at Edgware general hospital is to close when the facilities at Barnet general hospital are considered adequate to cope with patients from west Barnet and, doubtless, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).
My hon. Friend the Minister is known for listening and I would put it to him that when we offer the Government guidance on the health service and try to get them to take the right decisions on such issues as the Edgware general hospital, we cannot go by the old socialist bureaucratic


rule book that everywhere has to be identical. That is flying in the face of reality. Every health district is different.
Barnet health district has one of the most extraordinary differences from other health districts which must be taken on board. We have between the west and the east of Barnet the huge block of the A1. I have spoken about it before, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South for mentioning it tonight.
The A1 cuts through what was a network of little villages around London. Those little villages were joined up in a way which is now causing the most terrible traffic jams. People have had appalling traffic experiences. It is physically impossible for me or my wife to deliver three children to different schools in the locality between the hours of 8 and 9 in one car journey in the morning. The roads are seized up regularly.
The Government must recognise that our local traffic problems are reaching the point at which lives will be at risk in emergencies when people drive their cars through the traffic jams to try to get past the A1 with its rows of juggernauts. They will not always make it and there will be deaths.
I was grateful to have been permitted an intervention in earlier proceedings and to have received a reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that the Department of Transport will be consulted. Inevitably, recommendations will made and they will cost money. Let us face the facts now that consulting experts will cost money.
I am concerned about whether the Government will be able to deliver their promises of better health for the people of our locality. Secondly, we are a Government known for good management of resources. If, as a result of all this, when we have delivered a good hospital in Barnet general, but we have closed another accident and emergency department, it is found that the net cost—including the traffic costs and all the other problems—will be greater than keeping the unit open, we will not be known for good management and we will be hide-bound by the bureaucratic rule that we had to get rid of one accident and emergency department because Whitehall said so.
I understand the feelings expressed in the House this afternoon that other localities in Britain suffer even more. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) said that some of his constituents have to travel 60 miles to a hospital. In time, not in distance, it can be worse in Barnet. It can take two hours to reach a hospital when one is travelling through a solid traffic jam.
We are told that any emergency cases will go by ambulance. Certainly the blue light of the ambulance will carve a path through seized traffic, but I am worried that if someone is bleeding to death or dying of some illness, their wife, mother or brother may attempt to drive them to Barnet general hospital and get stuck in traffic. It is a real problem. We all see it as local Members of Parliament and we hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise the problem.
We hope that my hon. Friend will listen, as he is noted for listening, address the matter in his research and come back and candidly tell us what is in the report from the

Department of Transport so that we can consider it before the closure of the accident and emergency department at Edgware general hospital.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: May I first join the congratulations to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on his success in gaining this evening's Adjournment debate the day after the secretive announcement about hospital changes in London, which included announcements about Edgware general hospital, and the day on which the Secretary of State had to be brought to the House, to use the rather colourful expression of one of my hon. Friends, kicking and screaming to account for herself.
I represent the constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green in north London. It is in the borough of Haringey, which adjoins Barnet. It is fair to say that in north London, certainly in the boroughs of Barnet, Enfield and Haringey, what happens in one of those boroughs certainly has a knock-on effect on health provision in the other boroughs.
Today we are debating the proposed closure of the accident and emergency facilities at Edgware general hospital. In Haringey and Enfield we were much concerned about the possible amalgamation of the accident and emergency facilities between the North Middlesex and Chase Farm hospital. We were aware that there could have been a knock-on effect on Barnet. When we consider what is happening in one area of north London, we should be mindful that a much wider area might be affected, so it is extremely important that we are having this debate this evening.
Let me say something about accident and emergency facility in a hospital. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) put his finger on it when he said that in essence they are the life blood of a hospital. If the accident and emergency unit is closed it signals the death knell of a hospital. That has happened in many of our hospitals, of which Bart's is a good example.
Something that has distressed me, both today and on other occasions when London Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, have come together to discuss health issues, is the apparent anti-London bias among some Conservative Members. There is a feeling that London is well provided for. That is not the case. Indeed, what we have heard tonight about the future of Edgware general hospital shows that it is not over-provided for.
In the context of the wider picture, I draw attention to the Whittington and North Middlesex hospitals and the consequences for them of the proposed closure of the accident and emergency unit at Edgware. I am extremely worried about the effects of that.
Hon. Members have referred to the traffic problems in London, about the problems of having to travel some distance to a hospital and about the problems of the London ambulance service. I do not need to remind hon. Members about the difficulties and problems of the London ambulance service, which all Members, of whatever political persuasion, recognise. The Department of Health has shown a gross lack of management of that service. It has not given proper support to the excellent men and women who work for that service—a service to which we, as Londoners, owe such a great debt.
I end by referring to our responsibilities as Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) touched on that. We all owe a duty to our constituents, no matter which party we represent. Week in, week out, at our constituency surgeries and in our postbags, we receive representations from our constituents. We come to this place not just to have the pleasure of listening to our colleagues or to the sound of our own voices; we are here as the voice of our constituents.
In London, as elsewhere, local people have a great attachment to their local hospitals. They identify with them. The great difficulty with health provision, and this is not often recognised by the Government or the bureaucrats, is that part of getting well and of feeling well cared for is not just the excellent professional care that people receive in their local hospitals, it is how people feel about the hospital itself. It is how the family—husband, wife, son or daughter—feel about it. Most important, it is what the community feels about the hospital. That is absolutely vital.
It appears that in dealing with Edgware general hospital, the Government, once again, have not taken into consideration the feelings of local people and those who use our local facilities. I urge the Government to think about the consequences for the Whittington and North Middlesex hospitals and also to think again about all the central London hospitals that have been so badly affected by the Government's policies.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: At lunchtime today, I had the great privilege of representing the parliamentary Labour party when meeting a delegation of very young constituents of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who had come to the entrance of the House to ask us to save their hospital. I understand that most of those young children had been born in that hospital. They had spent time preparing leaflets and making a banner and badges to set out the case for their local hospital. They had obviously been encouraged to do so by their teachers and parents, but their strength of feeling about the hospital was made clear to me and to their local Members of Parliament, who are all Conservative Members.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East on having secured this important debate. I congratulate his colleagues the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst), for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), and for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). It was not easy for them to make the important contributions that they have made today. It is not easy to speak in a manner that will not find favour with one's Front Bench. It requires courage to do that and I congratulate them on it. I recognise the case that they are making, which is not for a change, but for a review; a ministerial reflection. That case has been well made today.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that the manner of the announcement yesterday left just about everything to be desired. It was sneaked out in a written answer. The range of changes announced to the hospital service in London was so significant that it merited a statement in the House. Indeed, the private notice question to which the Secretary of State had to respond today—she came here because

she had to, not because she wanted to—the number of interventions that were made and the fact that some hon. Members were still rising at the end of a generous hour's questioning show how strong the feeling is on both sides of the House.
That strength of feeling transcends party politics. Every Member of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, wants to do his best for the constituents who elected him to come to this place to represent them. I congratulate both Conservative Members and Labour Members on doing just that. The Secretary of State for Health has done herself no good—nor, indeed, the office that she holds—by perpetually sneaking out difficult announcements under the cover of some other statement. Yesterday, it was the statement on the report of the Privileges Committee; not long ago the announcement of the increase in prescription charges was sneaked out on the day of the Northern Ireland announcement. That is no way to serve democracy and I deplore it.
This debate is important because it enables the House again to express its view—a virtually united view—to the Under-Secretary of State for Health. He can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling or the sincerity of the local Members of Parliament. It was deplorable that they were laughed at by the Government Whip. This is not a laughing matter. The constituents of those Conservative Members take it very seriously indeed. Those hon. Members perfectly properly have done what they should do: represented their constituents' views. That should have the sympathy of the House; it certainly should not be treated as a laughing matter.
The Secretary of State has never provided a debate on any health issue in Government time. Any such debate has always had to have been dragged out of the Department by a Member or it has been provided through an Opposition Supply Day. The narrow issue, although there is a wider context, is the plan to close the accident and emergency unit at Edgware general hospital. The claim is that the geographically nearby Barnet hospital will be able to cope.
The piecemeal way in which decisions have been made in London is deeply flawed. London will rue the day that those decisions are implemented. Of course, the points made about traffic issues are well taken, especially in the context of the shortcomings of the London ambulance service. To say that those facilities will be replaced with primary health care eventually is just not good enough. Local people and their elected representatives rightly worry that they will lose the accident and emergency service, and that primary health care will, at best, come later. I notice that the Secretary of State has not been forthcoming about how much is to be spent. More important, she has not been forthcoming not only about how much revenue expenditure is to be committed, but about when it will be committed. That failure to make a definite statement is clearly fuelling the uncertainty, as well it might.
Further investment in primary health care is right for London, but it will not lead to a reduction in the demand for secondary care. An increase in primary care may stimulate demand for secondary care and for the sort of services that are provided at Edgware general hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green made the good point that the loss of an accident and emergency unit was the thin end of the wedge, and that the general closure of the hospital would not be far behind.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) said, this exercise is driven by financial considerations. No one could have taken any comfort from the light statement that the Secretary of State made about the revenue issues involved in that exercise.
Hon. Members have made the point about consultation. If one is to consult local people, one should do it in a meaningful way. One should be willing to listen to what they have to say. However, in the whole debate on secondary health care in London, no evidence exists of the Department listening to anyone. Clinicians, managers, local people, their elected representatives and members of local authorities are screaming at the Government to think again.
When the parliamentary Opposition say to the Government, "Think again", they satirise our position as requiring a review of a review. I have said this before and I make no apologies for saying it again. If one is going in the wrong direction, there is no shame in pausing, thinking and saying, "Perhaps we ought to turn around". That is the position that the Government find themselves in today. I urge the Minister to listen to what just about everyone is saying to the Department. I urge it to come out of its ivory tower, and to mix with real people rather than a handful of professional advisers.

Sir John Gorst: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about listening, may I tell him that, when the regional health authority finally considered the matter, the admiral of the fleet who chairs that organisation said—I cannot vouch for this, but I have been informed that it is so—that it was a meeting in public, but not a public meeting.

Mr. Brown: That is a new concept to me. The Government are clearly doing to the national health service what they have done to the Royal Navy, and they are using the same people to do it. Representing Swan Hunter shipyard, I speak with some feeling.
The exercising of political judgment is the real issue. The Secretary of State and her team of Ministers do not seem able to do that. They rely on specialist advisers. They do not allow anyone else to put a point across to them, no matter how widely the public support that point. They make decisions and do not have the courage to announce them proudly in the House of Commons, or in any other forum where they can be criticised, and then they seem to be slightly resentful of the fact that they are eventually dragged here to explain what on earth they think they are doing.
That is a hopeless state of affairs. The only way out of it is an independent review, which should be conducted not by the Government's political opponents—although that may happen soon enough—but by an independent body that can take evidence. The people who serve on it should be respected across the professions as well as local communities. A post-Tomlinson reassessment is needed because much of the evidence on which Tomlinson was founded is deemed by many people to be so deeply flawed.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East on securing the debate. I assure him that I support his request for a review.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on bringing this debate before the House. I have no doubt as to the great sincerity with which he has done that, or about the feelings that the matter has engendered in his constituents and in those of my hon. Friends. I congratulate all those who have spoken and, in particular, with one exception, I commend them on the brevity of their speeches. I welcome the fact that the debate has attracted expert witness from as far away as Lewisham and Newcastle. I have no doubt about the importance of the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East.
I should like to make one important point first. Edgware hospital will not close. As has been said, it will continue as a major provider of health care in the region. I shall briefly run through the matters that will be out for consultation, but, at Edgware hospital, there is likely to be a great range of out-patient services, rehabilitation, mental health facilities and palliative care, not forgetting minor accident treatment, which is likely to be used by many people—a large proportion of those now using the accident and emergency department.
I have been asked about beds.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: I think that I shall continue. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened at some length in the debate.
Currently, there are 747 beds in the Wellhouse Trust, excluding psychiatry. Following the changes, the potential capacity is 635, a reduction of 112. The House might like to know that, since the publication of the consultation document, an additional 50 beds have been opened at Northwick Park hospital, with additional plans already in hand for a further 62. An extra ward of 24 beds has already been brought into use at the Royal Free hospital, and the provision of an extra 44 beds in existing wards has been made.

Sir John Gorst: Listening to my hon. Friend, I wonder whether he knows or recognises the difference between when someone is ill or has some slight infirmity that requires hospital treatment, and when someone is traumatised by a sudden accident or heart attack? What an accident and emergency unit does is at the heart of what reassures people. He is telling us that all the peripheral things will be there. He is missing the point of the whole debate.

Mr. Sackville: I was seeking to answer a specific question about in-patient beds. I shall talk later about A and E departments and 999 attendances.
I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said. The A and E department will not close until new facilities are in place—that is to say, an expanded modern A and E department at Barnet general hospital. Part of the £29 million phase 1a extension at that hospital will include new theatres, wards and other facilities and, of course, bringing the minor accident treatment service at Edgware into operation.
If I were asked briefly to give the reasons that have led to those proposals and the decision, I should divide them into two parts. First, it is true that we want services to be


provided more efficiently in the whole region. We are constantly faced with the need to provide health services efficiently. There is indeed a financial aspect to this. There is no doubt that there is a subsidy to the local area which, to a great extent, is a result of the fact that we are currently providing acute services at two hospitals. All hon. Members who have spoken tonight know that this has been presented as an on-going problem which will probably get worse unless some action is taken.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, there are clinical reasons for the decision. We do not want any duplication of specialty services; we want modern facilities of a certain size so that the correct number of patients pass through, thus enabling us to provide, where possible, not only a consultant-led service but a consultant-provided service. We have heard too many stories recently about things going wrong in the NHS in the absence of consultants. That is particularly true of accident and emergency services where, whether or not it is possible to achieve this in the short term, we aim to provide 24-hour consultant cover. One cannot always expect junior doctors to provide the same level of expertise as doctors with years of experience.
Accident and emergency departments in particular—although it is to a certain extent true of other specialities—need a certain flow of patients. It is no good providing a very specialised service—the accident and emergency service is now recognised as such—if the doctors and nurses involved do not see enough cases to develop the expertise to deal with, for example, head injuries. One needs a service that is large enough to develop expertise, or one runs the risk of having unsafe services because for too much of the time one would be running them with too low a grade of medical staff and with staff who do not have sufficient exposure to special problems to be able to offer the best that is available today.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital is very heavily utilised?

Mr. Sackville: Yes. I believe that it has a volume in excess of 40,000 attendances a year and that something in the order of 25 "999" ambulances use it. It does not have 24-hour consultant cover. We are not aiming for the American model of trauma centres, but we at least want to ensure that anyone who attends an accident and emergency department as an emergency is seen by a consultant. That must be our aim because it can make an enormous difference to the outcomes. Certainly, we have to count beds and consider questions of access and distance, but, at the end of the day, it is the outcomes that are enormously important. That is what the service is all about.
I am well aware of the concern felt by many hon. Members about transport. I can confirm that it will be kept under review. The district health authority and the trust will want to ensure that the necessary action is taken where transport facilities are inadequate.
The issue of "999" ambulances is of grave concern to the public and has already been mentioned once or twice this evening. The London ambulance service has had problems that are unique to the capital. Of the 35-plus services in England, only the London ambulance service has failed to get anywhere near its target time. The target

time involves responding to 90 to 95 per cent. of calls within 14 or 19 minutes, depending on whether the service involved is a rural or urban one.
I am glad to be able to make it clear that there has been a very marked improvement in recent months in the London ambulance service's performance from what I admit was a very low base. Not long ago, we were talking about performance figures of only 50 per cent. or just over. Recently, the figure has been 76 per cent., and the latest figures reveal that targets were reached in 74 per cent. or 75 per cent. of cases, which is a favourable development. I suspect that there is now a very much better atmosphere between management and staff than that which bedeviled the service.

Mr. Marshall: In effect, my hon. Friend is saying that the target is not hit in one in four cases. Does he accept that, if that rate continued, the proposal would be unacceptable?

Mr. Sackville: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we would expect a further improvement in performance. I can report to the House that there are already plans for extra resources to go directly into the Barnet and Edgware area. In fact, the local health authority is putting an extra £320,000 into local ambulance cover and two extra standby points for "999" ambulances have been provided.
Detailed work has recently been carried out into the journey times of the London ambulance service and it has been calculated that, with the extra resources, the average call-to-hospital time for Brent and Harrow residents would decrease by between one and two minutes with an increase for Barnet residents of just under half a minute compared with current performance. That is the effect that the extra resources, quite apart from the overall increases in performance, would have on journey times. I think that that is encouraging.

Mr. Dykes: In view of the distance between Barnet hospital, Edgware hospital, the Royal Free and the Northwick Park hospital, that input of two additional ambulances will be wholly inadequate.

Mr. Sackville: The question of ambulance cover and where ambulances are stationed has to be worked out on the basis of the demand at different times of the day and the week. We have to leave it to the London ambulance service to make those dispositions, but we demand that the service not only provides additional resources to cover that area but that it makes an overall improvement in performance of the sort that has been achieved all over the country.
The London ambulance service is funded at the same level as, or even better than, any other urban ambulance service. There is no reason on earth why it should not achieve the very high standards of many of the county ambulance services, which are probably as high as any in Europe. We look to the service to do just that.
Primary care is fundamental to all our arrangements.

Mr. Booth: Before my hon. Friend moves on to another subject, may I draw him a little further on transport? He said that he would keep it under review, but does he accept that, unless he has expert advice or an independent inquiry, as suggested by the hon. Member for


Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), there will be nothing to review because his Department is not responsible for transport?

Mr. Sackville: Access to hospitals is fundamental to any monitoring of the performance of those hospitals and especially that of accident and emergency departments. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter will not be forgotten or ignored.
I deal now with primary care because, clearly, all those matters involving the configuration of acute services and hospital services in our major city need to be accompanied by improvements in primary care, in GP services and in community services. I well understand that those improvements are needed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said, somewhat hesitantly—I will say it more robustly—that there would be £15 million of new, special funding spent over five years for primary care in the Edgware area. Current projects, to give an example, include the extension of home nursing for people who are terminally ill. There have been improvements in GP surgeries and there is an outreach ophthalmology clinic. Further planned projects include improved community therapy services, increases in the number of community nursing staff and a new GP surgery in Burnt Oak.

Mrs. Roche: Can the Minister tell me what community therapy services and community nurses have to do with the closure of an accident and emergency facility?

Mr. Sackville: I was making a general point about improvements in community and primary services. These are specially funded services rather than just what is normally provided by the health authority and the FHSA.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend has said that there will be an extra £15 million over five years. How much of that is coming in the current financial year?

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend has defeated me there. I shall have to write to him on that point.

Sir John Gorst: This is precisely the point that many of us have been making. The announcement has been made and no plans exist. The Minister does not even know the position.

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. We have to assume that the statement about £15 million over five years suggests that there will be fairly level spending over that period. I am sure that he is right to try to—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is not the Minister really saying that once the savings have been realised from the closure of the accident and emergency unit, they will then be ploughed back into primary care?

Mr. Sackville: I am not saying that at all. Primary care is already being improved in London, as it is all over the country because new primary facilities are provided everywhere. I have opened many new GP surgeries and community centres in the past two and a half years. The money is extra money from a special fund aimed at improving community and primary services in the area.
A more general point, which has been made several times, concerns the way in which the changes were announced. I must correct the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came kicking and screaming to the House. I was here and I saw her neither kick nor scream during any part of the day. She answered a number of questions extremely convincingly.
On the question of whether my right hon. Friend should have made a statement—much has been made of this—all that I can say, speaking as a north-western Member, not a London Member, is that I have been involved in many major changes in the health service involving the closure of hospital facilities. They are always accompanied, as in this case, by major redevelopments of modern facilities. On no occasion have we made a statement on the subject to the House. I agree that this is a major package of changes, but I believe that there is not, formally speaking, any precedent for making a statement for the agreement of proposals for the reconfiguration of hospital services. It has never been suggested during the two and a half years in which I have been involved in dozens of such proposals.

Sir John Gorst: May I offer a different point of view to my hon. Friend? If the Birmingham theatre closed, I would not expect the nation to have a statement from the Secretary of State for National Heritage. However, if Covent Garden opera house was to be closed, I would expect the Secretary of State to come to talk about it. What has happened here is that two of the monuments of our medical service—Bart's and Guy's—are to he closed in a most surreptitious fashion, with no statement. I honestly believe that it is wrong for the Minister to say that just because no statements are made about Birmingham, no statements should he made about the cathedrals of the medical world.

Mr. Sackville: That is the sort of elitism to which we in the north-west have to listen a great deal. I am not particularly convinced by that argument. These are matters that have been discussed widely in the House and elsewhere over recent weeks and months.

Mr. Dowd: That may have been the Minister's judgment before. He must, however, have noticed, because he sat loyally through the private notice question this afternoon, that it ran for one hour and four minutes, yet there were still at least half a dozen Conservative Members waiting to get in. Does that not now, post hoc, suggest to him that the decision not to present the proposals as a statement was a miscalculation? Will he bear that in mind if something like this happens in future? Let us hope that no such thing happens.

Mr. Sackville: I note that Madam Speaker granted a private notice question; that is a matter for the Chair. I also note that yesterday, she did not grant a private notice question on the subject. This is not a matter I want to go into further.
Although I welcome very much the fact that the subject has been so ably aired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, I ask him to read Hansard and to reconsider some of his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), the Government Whip. He may find that he went a little far, especially as he was


talking about an hon. Member who, by long convention of the House, was not able to answer the charges made against him.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Even at this stage, the Minister must be aware of the depth of feeling on the matter. It should and must be looked at again, and it should be thrashed out. At the moment, it is a question of saying that the proposals will take effect in two years' time; there is time. I presume that the two years apply because there will be two years of consultation. We have had none yet.

Mr. Sackville: Uncomfortable as many of these decisions are, a decision has to be reached in these cases. I do not like being here at the Dispatch Box having to defend this decision because, like many decisions over much-loved local hospitals, it is not popular. People do not like it and they fear the worst as a result of hearing that local health facilities will be closed. I absolutely accept that there are grave concerns. On the other hand, I have spelt out some of the reasons why we have had to arrive at this decision. I have spelt out some of the factors that should reassure people that there will be no closure of the A and E, for example, until new facilities are in place.
As I have already told the House, I have been involved in several such decisions. No one ever likes them. The local health managers and often—it is true in this case—some or all of the clinicians agree with the decision; very few other people do because it is natural that people do not want health services to change. From our point of view, as those responsible for trying to provide a consistent health service around the country, we have to make changes. We have to modernise and we have to concentrate services from two or three places, sometimes into one, simply to provide them not only efficiently, but well and safely. I would not pretend that this decision is popular.
I regret very much that, from the tone of the debate, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have apparently failed to convince the local Members of Parliament. I can tell them that we have considered these matters carefully. We are quite certain, as are all the others who work in the health service who have contributed to this decision, that the proposals will provide over the area as a whole a better and more modern health service.

Sir John Gorst: It is possible that the House might take a different view—we hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister might have taken such a view, but he has not so far suggested that. If the proposals were to be vetoed by the House on a vote, what would be the position in relation to the London closures? We should know that because it is important when deciding how to treat any vote on the subject.

Mr. Sackville: That is a procedural matter and it involves health considerations that go much wider than the subject of the debate. While I understand my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that he will forgive me if I

do not attempt to answer it. All that I can say is that I believe that we have made the right long-term decision for the overall good of health care in the area. We have to make many such decisions.
I resent the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East that this is an example of the health service being unsafe in our hands. If we took no such decisions, never made any major changes to hospital provision and went on exactly as we were, we would probably have very few new hospitals, and would be treating fewer patients rather than more, and at greater cost. That is not a recipe for the NHS to be safe in anyone's hands.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he misunderstood—I specifically paid tribute to the need for the Government to have disciplined financial management over all matters and all installations in the national health service. I have always supported that policy in general, and think that everybody should do so. I thought that we had made our views crystal clear and I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not seem to be grasping the reality.
The perception is wrong; the public do not trust the process. I am sad and regret having to say that they do not feel that they can accept my hon. Friend's assurance that the consultations have been genuine. The Government have been going through pretend motions, then ignoring and dismissing the views and the thousands of opinions, including expert medical ones. The trouble is that the Government never reassure the public in respect of any such instances. That is why we continue to fight in this case to see whether the process has been genuine and other opinions against the closure of the accident and emergency unit have been heeded. Why should they not be heeded? Why should not the Government say that they disagree with the regional health authority and will keep the facilities open because the hospital is needed?

Mr. Sackville: The Government find themselves agreeing with the regional health authority that we have to make the changes in order to provide an efficient, safe and high-quality health service over the area.
If, over the past few years, we had not made any decisions about hospital provision—many of them unpopular—we would not be treating 120 patients for every 100 that we treated four or five years ago. We would not have better outcomes—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: No, I shall not as I am just about to finish my speech.
It is sometimes necessary to take decisions which may not always be popular, but which we know to be in the best interests of providing a modern health service in the long term. The decision that we are discussing is no exception.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eight o'clock, till Tuesday 18 April.